Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Criminal Record Checks

Mr. Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on the cost of criminal record checks for volunteers in voluntary organisations. [151698]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Criminal record certificates and enhanced criminal record certificates, which will relate principally to positions involving working with those under the age of 18, or with vulnerable adults, will be issued free of charge to volunteers—not only in voluntary organisations but in other situations too.

Mr. Hope: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. As chairman of the all-party group on charities and the voluntary sector, and on behalf of the sector as a whole, may I say how pleased we are by the Government's response to the campaign? It is important that volunteers have free checks so that children can be properly protected. The sector fully supports criminal record checks, and there was concern that, in the international year of volunteering, children would not receive that kind of protection. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when the system is introduced, the checks will provide the kind of security and information that those organisations need to ensure that children receive the best possible protection?

Mr. Boateng: The Government are grateful to the all-party group and to my hon. Friend, its chairman, for their work in representing the voluntary sector's concerns. I can give him the assurance that he seeks, but he will understand—as, I am sure, will other Members on both sides of the House—that the protection of children and vulnerable people cannot be served by a body like the Criminal Records Bureau alone. It is important to make sure that those responsible for recruiting workers in that sector themselves carry out the necessary checks of other references, and put in place the necessary arrangements for proper interviews and performance monitoring. We

need a complete package to protect children and vulnerable people better, but this step is an important part of that, and we are glad to have taken it.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: Can the Minister assure us that the certificates will be transferable, whether given by the Scottish Executive, the Home Office—in England—or, presumably, the Welsh Assembly, and that people who move to different parts of the country will not have to apply all over again?

Mr. Boateng: We are working closely with the Assembly and the Executive to make sure that there is a proper exchange of information. Those negotiations and discussions are continuing, and I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman to tell him of our progress.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for exempting volunteers from the proposed charges for the Criminal Records Bureau, thus inadvertently responding to a recommendation that the Home Affairs Committee is likely to send him. Will he pay particular attention to inaccuracies and omissions in the police national computer records of convictions, involving failure to record convictions against some people, as well as the opposite? When those checks are made, it is essential that they are as accurate as possible.

Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the Committee for their work in that area, as is my fellow Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has identified a problem that we are exploring with the Association of Chief Police Officers. We will make sure that we get things right, because we seek to achieve the degree of accuracy that he rightly pinpoints as important.

Mr. David Lidington: I welcome the Government's change of policy, and the alacrity with which they changed course once they knew about the speech that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Would that the Government always followed my right hon. Friend's suggestions with such alacrity.
The Minister talked about exemptions for volunteers. Will the Government exempt voluntary organisations generally, or just individual volunteers? In particular, will he explain why, a week after the Government's announcement, in a written answer on 15 February, another Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), mentioned registration fees for the Criminal Records Bureau, which would involve employers and voluntary organisations paying a charge of £300? Have the Government not been rather shy about letting us know about that?

Mr. Boateng: if I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically churlish in his response to the announcement. I thought that he had a sunnier disposition—but perhaps it is the time of year, and the anticipation of potential approaching events. As he well knows, this is an exemption for volunteers, not for voluntary organisations. It is right that voluntary


organisations should pay a registration charge, and we are having discussions with them about that and several other related matters. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would give a broader and more generous welcome to the measures that we have announced.

Police Numbers (Sussex)

Mr. Tim Loughton: If he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Sussex constabulary on police numbers in Sussex. [151699]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Government have no plans to call for such a report. Sussex police have been allocated a total of 206 crime fighting fund recruits. According to the latest information provided by the force, about 42 of those will be recruited in the current year and the remainder in the following two years. For 2001–02, the Sussex police authority will receive funding support of £181.8 million, which represents an increase of £9.3 million, and is 5.4 per cent. more than the provision for 2000–01. The authority will also receive about £500,000 a year from the rural policing fund.

Mr. Loughton: It is a shame that the Minister should say that, because last month he revealed that there are now 273 fewer police officers in Sussex than there were in March 1997. That represents one of the biggest cuts in the country. His statement also masks the added problem of the extra drain on resources, in the Worthing area in particular, caused by a series of murder investigations, including that into the murder of Sarah Payne; by the investigations into the human trafficking of at least 40 Nigerian girls abducted from social services and sold into prostitution in northern Italy; and, most recently, by the investigations into the 20 armed raids that have taken place in Worthing in the past nine weeks alone. Those raids include those involving my local sub-postmaster, Jack Sahaid, who was held up twice at knife-point and once at shotgun-point in the space of a week, and who has shown great bravery and community spirit by keeping the sub-post office open.
When will the Minister intervene and do something to give back the police officers taken away over the past four years, rather than coming up with this constant guff about additional resources—which do not result in extra police officers—and about numbers being the responsibility of the chief constable? Many of my constituents—such as shopkeepers and sub-postmasters—are living in fear at the moment.

Mr. Clarke: It is not guff at all. The fact is that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, throughout the country crime is falling and police numbers are rising.

Mr. Loughton: Not in Sussex.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman should stop heckling; he has already had his say.
In Sussex, as in every other police authority, it is up to the chief constable to decide how to allocate resources. The chief constable, his staff and his authority decided quite explicitly to increase the number of civilians in the

force over a long period More than one third of forces in the country now have more police officers than they had in 1997, and that will happen in Sussex as well.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the Minister not remember the present Prime Minister's pledge in 1995 that a Government led by him would put thousands more police officers on the beat? Given the fall of 2,500 in police numbers across the country, including 273 in Sussex—and not forgetting the fall by one third in the number of specials—is this not just another example of all spin and no delivery? When will the Minister give us a timetable—a short one—for restoring those police numbers in Sussex and throughout the country?

Mr. Clarke: That phrase does not improve with age. The facts are simple and straightforward. Since 1993, the number of police officers in Britain had been going down—until about a year ago when, following the decisions of this Government, police numbers started to go up for the first time.
A while ago we published figures that showed an increase of 444 police officers across the country up to September last year. Those trends are increasing and we shall be in a position to continue to increase them through the next year or two, as we continue to achieve a constant movement towards increasing police numbers. Many forces are already saying that they have the largest number of police officers in history coming in, in the short term, and nearly half the forces in Britain have more police officers than they had in 1997. The hon. Gentleman's arguments are nonsense, as he well knows, and he should get down to examining his own record as well as ours.

Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)

Mr. Keith Danrill: What measures he is taking to increase the recruitment of police officers to the Metropolitan police service. [151700]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Government have provided generous funding to the Metropolitan police service to enable it to increase its police numbers. The Met has been allocated a total of 2,044 recruits under the crime fighting fund. That, combined with the resources recently agreed with the Greater London Authority, should enable the Met to increase its target strength by 1,050 officers, to 26,650, in the coming year.
Other measures to boost recruitment in the Met include the increase of about £3,300 a year in the London allowance paid to officers in the Met and the City of London police who joined after 1994, the provision of free rail travel within a 70-mile radius of London for the Met's officers, and the national recruitment campaign. Several outline bids covering the Metropolitan police area are also being assessed under the first round of the Government's starter homes initiative

Mr. Darvill: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and I am grateful to him for reminding the House of the raft of measures that address recruitment and retention in the Metropolitan police service. Can he assure me that he will continue to monitor closely the progress being made to increase police numbers, and will he ensure in


particular that outer London police divisions, such as Havering, have their fair share of police officers? Despite the Government's creditable performance in reducing overall crime by 10 per cent., concern remains that police numbers still need to reflect the changing demands in localities, so that the Metropolitan police can continue to bear down on criminal behaviour.

Mr. Straw: I fully understand the needs of the outer London boroughs, not least Havening—an area I know well. As my hon. Friend knows, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has removed an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy from the Metropolitan police service. That is releasing officers for front-line duties, as is his policy of dealing with unnecessary sick leave, which in turn has released more than 500 officers for front-line duties. The bare gross figures do not tell the full story about numbers, but I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that recruitment in the last month was running at double the level of a year ago.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Given the mix-up over Metropolitan police housing in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, does the Home Secretary accept that the motivation of pre-Sheehy and post-Sheehy officers in Metropolitan police housing may be adversely affected by the turn of events, and that retention as well as recruitment may be at stake?

Mr. Straw: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but as he knows, we are taking steps to put the matter right. The latest figures show a net increase in the number of officers going into the Metropolitan police service. In general, morale is greatly improving—all the data suggest that—and a major factor in that improvement is the provision of free rail travel for all officers.

Ex-Offenders

Mr. Paul Clark: What steps the Prison Service is taking to help offenders secure work on release from prison. [151701]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government are committed to reducing reoffending by those released from prison. That is why we are investing £30 million in a new Prison Service custody-to-work programme, with the aim of doubling the number of prisoners going into jobs on release over the next three years.

Mr. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that jobs—as he clearly said—and stable accommodation are two of the most important factors in ensuring that people do not reoffend? Does he acknowledge that current research suggests that only about 10 per cent. of offenders get a job, and that 40 per cent. have no stable accommodation on release? Crime is falling overall in Medway, but there is still a long way to go. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the Government are taking all the steps that they can to ensure that people do not reoffend?

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is right. On a recent visit to Medway, I met a number of people engaged in the voluntary sector, not least those involved with

resettlement. We know that only 10 per cent. of prisoners get a job on release, and that more than 40 per cent. are released without stable accommodation to go to. The thrust of the custody-to-work initiative will be to ensure that prisoners get advice and assistance in advance, so that they can get a new deal place or a job, and issues such as housing benefit and the need for a stable address are dealt with by the probation service and the Prison Service working in tandem rather than separately. We thereby hope to ensure that we make a real contribution, through resettlement, to reducing reoffending. That is the bottom line: protecting the public better by ensuring that such people go to work, and go to a stable address.

Mr. Michael Jack: The Minister will be aware that prison-based commercial activity can contribute to reducing recidivism, but will he consider the way in which such activity is being carried out at Kirkham prison in my constituency? I have recently received complaints from those in the poultry industry that a new commercial enterprise based at the prison is being conducted in a very uncompetitive fashion. Those running the enterprise from the prison are doing a lot of boasting that it is cheaper than those that operate commercially outside, because their labour does not have to be costed in at a commercial rate. Will the Minister examine the matter for me?

Mr. Boateng: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the right hon. Gentleman have had some correspondence on this issue. We are well aware of the difficulties that he has outlined, which highlight the problem—he may like to make that point to his right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). We must get the balance right between creating commercial enterprises in a prison context and ensuring that they do not have an unfair advantage over the wider community. We are making real headway in this area. The total number of prisoners employed last year was 19,000. The number in the public sector has risen from 7,600, the figure that we inherited when we came into office, to 8,500 today. We are getting there, but it takes time and effort, and we are determined to put both into the equation.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I know that my right hon. Friend shares the view that providing education and training in prison is essential if prisoners are to be able to get jobs when they are released, and avoid going back to a life of crime and reoffending. The opportunities vary considerably from prison to prison, although improvements are being made. How much further does my right hon. Friend believe we can improve the opportunities, to ensure that all prisoners have education or training before they are released?

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. We still have further to go. We will increase spending on education in prisons by 17 per cent. over the next three years. Last month, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blackstone and I introduced a new prison/DFEE partnership at Wormwood Scrubs. Such partnerships will be rolled out across the country, and should provide real benefits for prisoners and for their future employment.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware of the evidence produced in yesterday's "Panorama"


programme that 90 per cent. of the people who leave Feltham young offenders institution reoffend? Does he agree that, although considerable progress has been made in educating the younger offenders, the vast majority leave without education or training, and are functionally illiterate and totally unprepared for the world of work? Could he explain how he is taking forward the programme to address that problem?

Mr. Boateng: I am well aware of the problem. Feltham will be one of the pilot institutions under the custodyto-work programme, and we have recently opened a new education centre there. It is true that the under-18 estate has had the benefit of real and substantial investment over the past three to four years. We have more to do for those between the ages and 18 and 20, and we are determined to do it.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that only last month the Director General of the Prison Service described many of our prisons as "hellholes"; that under this Government slopping out has returned; that assaults on staff have risen by 25 per cent.; that incidents of self-harm have soared by 35 per cent.; that only 9,000 out of 63,000 prisoners work in prison workshops—representing a reduction of 4 per cent. on the previous year—and that more than half of all ex-prisoners typically reoffend and go back through the revolving door of the criminal justice system, why does the right hon. Gentleman not abandon his smug complacency and either adopt the Conservative policy of a full working day for a full working wage, or accept that a Government who have an insatiable appetite for public office should give way to an Opposition who have an insatiable appetite for public service?

Mr. Boateng: I really do not think that the hon. Gentleman does justice to this subject. My responses to this question have in no sense been complacent. We still have a way to go, but the hon. Gentleman caricatures the director general's speech and the current state of the Prison Service.
This morning I attended the Butler Trust awards ceremony at Buckingham palace. The trust gives awards to prison officers—men and women—so that they can address some of the problems outlined by the hon. Gentleman. It is inspired by the former Conservative Home Secretary's approach to these issues—

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: One nation!

Mr. Boateng: As my hon. Friend says, it is very much a "one nation" approach, seeking to build consensus rather than division into penal policy.
We are addressing problems long neglected under the last Administration. That is why under the present Government, industrial output in prisons is up, qualifications for prisoners are up, and crime is coming down.

Animal Experimentation (Intimidation of Staff)

Dr. Ian Gibson: What discussions he has had with trade unions representing work forces engaged in animal experimentation about the intimidation of such workers. [151702]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I recently had a very productive meeting with representatives from the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union, which represents many employees in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical research industries. Officials were also in contact with the MSF when preparing drafts of the new measures to combat animal rights extremists that we have included in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. We welcome the strong support that the MSF has given these measures.

Dr. Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and welcome his association with the MSF.
Many believe that the people concerned are a determined group who will stop at nothing to secure their aims. Does my right hon. Friend agree? Will he afford full protection to Home Office licence holders so that they can carry out vital research, and will he attempt to involve the Trades Union Congress in that process?

Mr. Straw: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concerns. I have had discussions with the chief constables of two areas where there is a high concentration of scientific research to assure my self that proper protection is being provided. One such discussion took place this morning.
My hon. Friend is right to say that unfortunately, as we know from the record, many of those involved in extremist animal rights movements are—

Mr. John Bercow: Poisonous.

Mr. Straw: Poisonous and worse—and willing to go in for any kind of totally unacceptable tactics against people who are simply carrying out lawful and important duties.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I recognise the severity of the intimidation, and welcome the proposals in the impending Act. Will the Home Secretary nevertheless consider sympathetically the need for an emergency round-table conference of interested parties—including unions and other laboratory technicians, the pharmaceutical industry, the MPs affected, the police and, of course, Ministers—to reassure the public about what can be done, concentrating on how the existing law can be better used, and on whether new laws in addition to those in the Bill are needed?

Mr. Straw: What the hon. Gentleman proposes has more or less taken place already. I have had substantial discussions with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and the major scientific and medical research establishments, as well as with the police, both about the concerns of those involved in animal experimentation and about the response of the police and the Home Office.
I have been very anxious, at an institutional level but above all at a personal level, to offer the support of the Government—and, I believe, that of the whole House—for the work that those people are undertaking. As I have said before, without flat work, many important scientific and medical advances would never have been made and many people would have died prematurely or not been able to maintain the quality of their lives.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Home Secretary aware that it is not merely scientists who have been the


targets of these vandals? The Horlicks factory in my constituency, for example, has been invaded by animal rights extremists. Will the Home Secretary congratulate Thames Valley police on their vigorous action against those responsible for the attack?

Mr. Straw: Of course I understand the concern: the fact is that those people are both bad and mad. I have no idea quite how targeting a Horlicks factory can help to propagate their aims; none the less, it was dangerous. I am very pleased that Thames Valley police responded as they did.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Home Secretary might like to know that only last week, there was another incident in my constituency, directed against individuals working in the pharmaceutical industry. This is intimidation verging on terrorism. Will the right hon. Gentleman join other colleagues in raising the profile of the issue even higher, so that the Public understand that the animal liberation people are thugs and terrorists who will use no tactic other than violence against those individuals? Apparently, the animal liberation people are also threatening two of the Home Secretary's colleagues because of a reasoned argument about hunting. The situation is getting out of hand. What worries me is that, in relation to the importance of experiments on animals, and the awful way in which the animal liberation people behave, we do not have all the public on our side.

Mr. Straw: It is incumbent on all hon. Members to make the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made. We have to say that that type of intimidation and attack—including the recent attack on Mr. Brian Cass, the chief executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, but also many other less well-publicised attacks—is totally unacceptable.
We have a job to do in this place. However, the organisations that campaign for changes in animal welfare law also have a job to do. I believe that they should be much more vigourous in wholeheartedly condemning those animal rights extremists, and separating their perfectly lawful campaigns for change in the law from those who shelter behind them. I am sometimes very concerned indeed about the absence of a clear barrier between allegedly respectable organisations and those who go in for outright extremism and terrorism.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the chief executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences came to an all-party group, some of us were dismayed to learn the extent to which the cars of even relatively junior staff members had been vandalised. What can be done to protect junior members of staff? May I also ask, in the light of the Home Secretary's last answer, whether the Government are happy about the lack of backing from some who might be expected to show more courage in this matter, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland?

Mr. Straw: To deal with the last point first, I am certainly not happy about the response of some of the United Kingdom's financial institutions, which I believe were pusillanimous in the extreme. If financial institutions give in to that type of intimidation, it will wholly undermine those who are on the front line of that very

important scientific research. People in the financial institutions are far less likely to come under personal attack than those who conduct the experiments.
Although I realise that the institutions have responsibilities to their shareholders—undoubtedly that was the excuse used by the Royal Bank of Scotland, and by Barclays, which sought to withdraw provision as a registrar of one of the companies because it might be intimidated or harassed—they also have wider social and business responsibilities. The banks would be the first to squeal if, because of their pusillanimous approach, part of our scientific base, and therefore part of their income, were reduced.
As for my hon. Friend's first point, I happened by chance to have quite a conversation with Mr. Brian Cass as he was on his way to that meeting. I applauded his own personal courage in dealing with that attack. I am also aware of the attacks on those at a much lower level in such companies. The Government and the police are doing our very best to provide maximum protection. That is one reason why, two months ago, I announced a special grant of £1 million to Cambridgeshire constabulary to meet the extra costs of policing these problems.

Police Recruitment

Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the entry requirements to join the police force. [151703]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We have received a number of representations from hon. Members, and correspondence from members of the public. Representations from hon. Members have been about the medical entry requirements affecting unsuccessful applicants to the police forces. Most of the representations from members of the public have requested that entry requirements, particularly those on eyesight or health, be reviewed. The entry requirements for police officers are currently being reviewed as part of a strategy to develop national recruitment standards.

Mr. Amess: Although I accept everything that the Minister has said, will she explain why this rotten, incompetent shambles of a Government have cut the number of serving police officers in Southend by nine over the past year and by 181 in Essex since 1997? Does she not understand that the reason why police morale is at rock bottom is that the Government let out 250 criminals who had assaulted police officers after they had served only a third of their sentence? What on earth does this rotten Government mean by being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime? Was that simply a reference to the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)?

Mrs. Roche: May I advise the hon. Gentleman that in future he should really say what he means? He should not be so shy.
Let us look at the facts. Resources are available for Essex to recruit up to 197 officers through the crime fighting fund. Essex is benefiting from the national


recruitment campaign. Essex officers may also benefit from the Government's starter homes initiative, which will do something to help police officers.
The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on this point with his constituents. Under the previous Government, between 1979 and 1997, crime in Essex went up by more than 88 per cent. Crime in Essex has come down by 3.2 per cent. since May 1997.

Mr. John Cryer: To return from Planet Zarg after the previous speaker, may I ask my hon. Friend whether there are any plans to introduce a multiple-point entry system for the police force?

Mr. John Bercow: Tell us all about multiple points, Barbara.

Mrs. Roche: I would be very glad to if the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would contain his enthusiasm for a bit. We are currently reviewing the requirement.

Antisocial Behaviour

Mr. Crispin Blunt: If he will make a statement on the Government's policies to deal with antisocial behaviour. [151704]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced measures to deal with antisocial behaviour, including the crime and disorder partnerships and antisocial behaviour orders.
We are introducing further measures in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, including fixed-penalty notices, for a wide range of offences to help police deal immediately with loutish behaviour and to provide strengthened controls on drinking in the streets.
We are implementing in full the policy action team report on antisocial behaviour. The crime reduction toolkit on antisocial behaviour, which was published in January, gives practitioners comprehensive and detailed advice on good practice and partnership working.

Mr. Blunt: Is it antisocial behaviour to tell an untruth?

Mr. O'Brien: It is of course the case that telling an untruth may be honestly done or dishonestly done. People have to consider these matters for themselves.
Antisocial behaviour is being addressed by the legislation that the Government have put through the House. We are ensuring that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 contains provisions that will deal with the real problems that concern the people of this country. They are concerned about law and disorder on our streets and about policing. That is why, under the Labour Government, crime is coming down and police numbers are going up, and that is why we are dealing with these issues, and ensuring that we do so effectively.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will the Minister say what action the Government intend to propose to the House to deal with the antisocial behaviour of the shadow Home Secretary and a Conservative Whip, who, by their example, are saying to louts and hooligans

that they should break the rules and break the law? Will my hon. Friend explain how louts, hooligans, drunkards and criminals can be expected to obey the law of the land if official spokesmen and spokeswomen of the Conservative party disregard, obstruct and set aside the decisions of the House of Commons?

Mr. O'Brien: My right hon. Friend is quite right: antisocial behaviour takes many forms. It is important that Members of the House set a good example—especially those who might one day aspire to high office. Opposition Front-Bench Member, especially the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in some of her behaviour last week, displayed a regrettably bad example for the young people of this country. When the right hon. Lady comes to the Dispatch Box to condemn loutish behaviour on our streets, let us make sure that we have no loutish behaviour from her in this place.

Mr. Simon Hughes: When Home Office Ministers look back over their four years of dealing with antisocial behaviour and crime, do they register the fact that, according to the latest opinion polls, nearly two thirds of the British public—more than in any other area of Government policy—think that the Government have failed on law and order?
The Government's senior policy adviser at the Home Office says that their performance has been incredibly poor; he cites clear-up rates that are the same as they were when those Ministers took office in 1997. At this late stage, may we at least have honesty? Gimmicks such as giving parking-type tickets to drunkards on the street and having curfews will not do much at all. To take away people's right to choose jury trial is positively an act in the wrong direction. If there was a commitment to real increases in police numbers and to real community safety forces that would give additional police service in each local council area— instead of all the rhetoric, all the window dressing and the many policies that have totally failed over four years—we might get somewhere.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric today is nothing short of amazing. The Liberal Democrats go around the country claiming to be tough on crime in one place and soft on crime in another. Every policy that the Labour Government—or indeed, any Government—have introduced to deal with crime and disorder on our streets has been attacked by the Liberals as being too tough on criminals.
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government's record is one of crime going down and police numbers going up. We are patting funding into fighting crime, while during this Parliament and in recent years, the Liberal Democrat party and especially the hon. Gentleman, as its spokesman on law and order, have been soft on crime throughout.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I welcome the policies introduced by my hon. Friend to combat antisocial behaviour. Does he agree that in crime hot spots, portable closed circuit television would help further to continue the reduction in crime? In many areas, there is a genuine fear that if the Tories had the opportunity to impose their


public spending cuts, such services would be reduced and crime would increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that portable CCTV would help to reduce crime still further?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The massive investment made by the Government in CCTV—encouraging local authorities and the police to install such facilities throughout the country—has certainly had a powerful impact on crime. Indeed, my hon. Friend is right to say that portable CCTV has a place in the array of tools needed by the police to deal with the problems of crime on our streets. He is also right to say that, while the Labour Government have a record of putting extra resources into the police, ensuring that we provide them with the communications systems that they need and that we put resources into CCTV and other technology, if the Conservatives got into power we would see £16 billion worth of cuts in public expenditure. Those cuts would fall on the police too. Let there be no mistake about it: when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her party were in office, we saw cuts in policing from 1993, with cuts in the housing allowance; we did not see the sort of investment that has been made in CCTV under the Labour Government. Their record was crime up; our record is crime down. Their record was cuts in police numbers; our record is police numbers now going up.

Dr. Julian Lewis: If the Minister can come out of pre-election auto-rant for a second, will he tell me whether any progress has been made on a practical suggestion about CCTV that I have made on several occasions and to which he has responded positively in the past? Where shops and garages trade during antisocial hours, there should be a requirement that they have adequate CCTV coverage in the places where people have to pay—where they have to queue in vulnerable situations and could be attacked by louts. Have the Government actually done anything about that, rather than saying that they think it is a good idea—which, of course it is?

Mr. O'Brien: It is indeed a good idea, and we are agreeing on resources for the retail crime reduction partnerships. It certainly would help if those late-night shops and various other facilities—

Mr. John Bercow: Outlets.

Mr. O'Brien: Outlets, as the hon. Gentleman helpfully suggests. If the various outlets were to have CCTV outside their premises, it would assist not only those who run them but the police; indeed, the Government are working with retail outlets in particular to try to ensure that we do that. I am a little concerned that small businesses in particular are reluctant to have extra burdens placed on them, and I am sure that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) does not want to do that. We need to take action by a process of proper discussion and negotiation with the business community, rather than by merely imposing regulations, as lie seemed to suggest. I am sure that, on reflection, he would agree that the previous Government imposed far too much regulation on

small businesses. The Government are trying to reduce that over-regulation, and that is one of the areas where we can make progress.

Mr. Desmond Browne: My hon. Friend will be aware that no behaviour is more against the interests and legitimate aspirations of many of the communities that we represent than that of those who deal in drugs and then flaunt the wealth that they have accumulated in that fashion in front of the communities that their behaviour is impoverishing and destroying. He will be aware that the publication of the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill and the extra money in the Budget for tackling crime and drugs were very welcome in Scotland, as they were throughout the United Kingdom, but does he agree that steps must be taken to foster a culture of whistleblowing among those who deal with criminals and who allow them the opportunity, inadvertently or by deliberate omission, to launder their money and transfer it into the legitimate economy?

Mr. O'Brien: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The draft Proceeds of Crime Bill will apply to Scotland, and the Budget announcement of an extra £220 million to tackle drugs was welcomed in Scotland, especially by my right hon. Friend the First Minister, who said that it was
a landmark piece of legislation
and
a big step forward in the war against drugs".
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we need to ensure that there is effective provision to encourage whistleblowing.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Is it antisocial to say that someone has told an untruth who is found not to have done; and, if so, should an apology be made to the victim?

Mr. O'Brien: I think that I have dealt with that, but the right hon. Lady has not dealt with the behaviour that she displayed in the House last week. Frankly, she and I are here to ensure that when we deal with such matters, we present an image to the public of some responsibility. What she has displayed during the past week puts the House in a bad light and reflects badly on her. Indeed, it reflects very badly on any Member of Parliament who seeks to put himself or herself in a position of responsibility. Those in high office have a responsibility to set an example, and she has failed to do that.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman at least agree that mugging is antisocial? If so, what is the appropriate response to someone who mugs 56 clauses, 42 Opposition amendments, 10 Government amendments and six schedules? Is not the correct penalty for such a person five years out of office, with no early release? Is not someone who stands up to that mugging acting in self-defence and should not he or she be supported by the authorities of the House, who care about effective parliamentary scrutiny? Get to the Dispatch Box and apologise.

Mr. O'Brien: It is the right hon. Lady who ought to be apologising for her appalling behaviour during the past week. She comes here and starts to say that she is


concerned about crime, but she sets a bad example to the people of this country in the behaviour that she displays. People are responsible for their actions, and she is responsible for the bad example that she set in the House last week. She should be at the Dispatch Box now, apologising for her behaviour not just to me and Labour Members but to every hon. Member and to all those who elect us.

Community Policing

Mr. Howard Flight: What guidance he gives to, and targets he sets for, chief constables with regard to community policing. [151707]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The only nationally required targets for the police service are those relating to burglary, vehicle crime and, for five major metropolitan areas, robbery. However, next year, all chief constables have agreed that they will report to their constituencies the measures that they are taking to increase visibility and accessibility in every ward and every parish in their police authority area.

Mr. Flight: Why have the Government neglected at least to provide guidance on targets for community policing over the past four years? The lack of police visibility and of community policing is perhaps the greatest concern of citizens in urban and rural areas. Why have the Government ignored that issue when they are only too willing to give guidance and directives on virtually every other?

Mr. Clarke: As the House knows, the Government significantly reduced the amount of guidance and performance indicators for the current year at the request of the police, and for precisely the reason that the hon. Gentleman suggests. To identify as we did the key crimes—burglary, vehicle crime and violent crime—was the right way to proceed. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman listened to my earlier answer, but I said that we have had a new departure in that chief constables have agreed with us that they all will report every year on the levels of visibility and reassurance that they offer to every parish and every ward in their police authority area. That is significant.
The hon. Gentleman's authority receives about £500,000 of the rural policing money every year and it will report every year on how that money is used to increase visibility and community policing. Later this year, we shall publish detailed advice and a toolkit of precise measures that can be used to develop that. That is a positive approach that is bearing very strong fruit already.

Retained Police Officers

Mr. David Heath: If he will introduce a category of retained police officers. [151708]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The idea of retained police officers is one of those that is being considered to increase visibility and reassurance in the current police reform discussions. Constables who serve probationary periods and sergeants may already work part-time, and the Police Negotiating

Board is currently considering proposals and draft regulations that would extend that right to probationers and to the inspecting ranks. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a range of creative approaches to the question of increasing the police presence is important and that is what we are actively discussing with the police at the moment.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Is it not the case that people in villages and small towns in rural areas across the country want sufficient police numbers so that there is a greater visible police presence? They want those police officers to be fully trained, fully equipped, in proper uniform and acting in the office of constable. Retained officers play a large part in providing rural firefighting services, and I am glad that the Minister is considering further the possibility of having retained police officers. Will he consider the matter with a degree of urgency to see what can be done for rural areas?

Mr. Clarke: We are considering the issue with a degree of urgency. As the hon. Gentleman knows, crime in Avon and Somerset has gone down by about 15 per cent. since 1997, but there is a great deal further to go. The types of measures that he has described that would develop an increased uniformed police presence—through specials, retained officers, targeted policing, patrols, different types of police station and so on—in every community are all part of the range of issues that we are actively discussing. We are already taking a number of different measures to encourage that approach.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I may have to confess my ignorance. but are not retained officers really the same as special constables? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, let me make my point then.
There has been a significant increase in the number of police officers in Lancashire, and that is good. However, there has been a reduction in the number of special officers, and that is bad. About a fifth of special officers go on to become full-time police officers but, in recent years, the number of specials in Lancashire has fallen by about 150. What do we need to do to get good, public-spirited people—who do not want to be full-time police officers but who would like to do the job part-time—to join the specials? The specials have a role in bolstering police numbers when the police are overstretched, and we must do everything that we can to increase their numbers.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right about specials, and he gave the answer to the problem in his question. His figures reflect the fact that many people who have joined that force see it as a route to recruitment as a full-time police officer. The harmonisation of health and safety regulations several years ago encouraged that process and we are considering whether it is the right way to proceed. Parish specials, who are located in their local parishes or wards, do not have the same obstructions or responsibilities as the police and we are actively considering whether that might be a better approach.
For my hon. Friend's information, special constables are different from retained constables because they get no basic pay for performing that role. Retained specials would get paid, although at a different rate to the regular


police force. That is what distinguishes their pay from the part-time rate. We are considering the retained option but, frankly, developing our approach to the specials, whose numbers have declined over recent years, is a higher priority because there are many obvious positive aspects to that force.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Minister has emphasised the importance that he attaches to increasing the number a special constables, and I agree with him. However, as I have told his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on previous occasions, I believe that it is proper to pay them, and that would be a useful way of increasing the numbers. There is a parallel with the retained fire service in rural areas, which is paid. There is no reason of principle why special constables should not be paid an allowance.

Mr. Clarke: First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be glad to note that crime has decreased by 20 per cent. in Lincolnshire since the election. I know that he will celebrate that fact with the Government. Secondly, he is right to say that there are issues relating to how we could pay retained officers in the way that he describes and that there might be parallels with the retained firefighters.

Mr. Hogg: I said specials.

Mr. Clarke: I know that, but the fight hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to retained officers. Whether we are considering volunteers, specials, part-time or full-time police officers or retained officers, we need to develop a new approach to maximise police presence in every community in Britain. That is precisely what we are discussing in the police reform process.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: As part of the reform, will my hon. Friend reflect on the experience of the Wandsworth and Greenwich packs police, which was established under a Greater London council provision to allow every London borough to have such a force for their open spaces and parks? Will he consider extending that power to all local authorities in England and Wales? In addition, will he consider extending the scope of the force so that it is not confined to municipally owned and controlled parks, but relates to other open spaces where the force could complement and supplement the work of a Home Office force?

Mr. Clarke: There is a range of different approaches, including park wardens. Local authorities can pay for police officers, which they do in some circumstances to help to encourage the policing of their parks. We encourage that in certain regards. However, I am slightly wary of encouraging the growth of a parks police force that is separate from the official office of constable. I was in Merseyside the other day and people asked me why they had a ports police and a Mersey tunnel police.
My hon. Friend's proposal raises some issues. It is important that there is co-ordination and organisation. Our crime and disorder partnership, which is a departure from the Opposition's approach when they were in government, attempts to establish the relationships that will encourage such a development.

Violent Crime

Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on violent crime. [151710]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The British crime survey reported a 4 per cent. fall in violent crime between 1997 and the end of 1999, but violent crime is still too high and street robberies have increased. Our comprehensive strategy for dealing with violent crime is set out in "Fighting violent crime together: an action plan", which we published on 10 January. Violent crime encompasses a wide range of offences that differ from each other greatly in terms of both type and seriousness. Our overall strategic approach is based on improving support for victims, better policing, more effective punishment, dealing with the causes of violent crime and tackling the conditions that breed violence.

Mr. Fabricant: The Home Secretary says that violent crime is still too high, and I agree with him. Is he aware that violent crime in Staffordshire has increased by 43 per cent? Is he further aware that, according to a parliamentary answer that he gave, we have lost more than 240 police officers from the beat since 1997? Does he not see a connection? Is it not the case that the Home Secretary, who has presided over the Hinduja passportsfor-money affair is not only seeing a breakdown of law and order in the country as a whole, but in his own Department as well?

Mr. Straw: I am aware that although crime in Staffordshire has increased by 4 per cent. overall in the last four years, that compares with an increase of 154 per cent. in the preceding 18 years of Conservative government. I am the first to accept that crime is too high, but I point out that crime levels throughout the country have decreased, and that includes overall violent crime as measured by the British crime survey. It does not include robbery, and we are concerned about that. We are taking action to ensure that robberies go down as well.
On overall police numbers, the Staffordshire chief constable has been provided with more than sufficient resources for an increase—

Mr. Fabricant: Don't blame him.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but in 1994 chief constables were given the power to decide the number of constables that they needed, as opposed to civilian staff and equipment. The chief constable of Staffordshire chose significantly to increase the number of civilians. In 1997, there were 2,974 civilians and officers in Staffordshire, but at the last count, in September, there were 3,054 officers and civilians—an increase of 80. It is for the chief constable to decide how resources should be used. We have ensured that crime has fallen throughout the country and that the number of police officers is rising, and that is a significantly better record than that achieved by the Conservatives.

Points of Order

Ms Bridget Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that at 8.30 this morning there was a train crash at Hither Green station in my constituency. Indeed, one of the trains involved was probably one that I would normally have used to get to Westminster. Although I am relieved that only nine people were relatively slightly injured and that the emergency services arrived very quickly and dealt with matters as professionally as we have come to expect, more than 1,000 people were on those two trains and many of them were probably standing. Have you heard whether a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement about whether there will be an inquiry into what happened at Hither Green this morning?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to hear that bad news. I have had no contact from any Minister.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful that you can consider this point, of which I have given you notice. On Friday morning, at column 527 of Hansard, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), gave an undertaking to the House. He said:
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I confirm that the Government will be tabling a motion on Monday to the effect that has been indicated for the House to consider at that time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) drew attention to the importance of that undertaking, when he said, at column 530:
I did not catch whether he said 'on Monday' or 'for Monday'. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that there is an important distinction.
At column 531, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said:
I apologise, Mr. Speaker. We need some clarification. I believe that the Minister indicated that he would be tabling a motion today for debate on Monday."—[Official Report, 9 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 527–31.]
That relates to the motion that appears as No. 3 on today's Order Paper. Some of us consider the motion to be absolutely disgraceful, but that is an issue for tonight, unless, Mr. Speaker, you can give me satisfaction on my point of order. The Minister of State indicated dissent to my hon. Friend, indicating that the motion would not be tabled on Friday. However, it was tabled on Friday, meaning that Back-Bench members of the Committee to whom the proceedings refer, such as myself, who had taken the Minister at his word, did not remain here until the close of business. Having listened to the points of order on Friday, I thought I would have an opportunity to table amendments to the motion today. That has not been the case. Given the Minister's undertakings and the fact that the terms of the motion are outrageous, I ask that the motion not be considered today.

Mr. Speaker: What the Minister said on Friday is not a matter for me. A motion has been tabled, and an amendment has been put down. So far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Tuesday, you were kind enough to hear

an application for a debate under Standing Order No. 24 on the situation in southern Serbia and Macedonia. Since then, the situation in the Presevo valley has got even worse. We now have news that Albanian extremists—the UCPMB—have refused NATO' s invitation for there to be Serb troops in the buffer zones. In view of the fact that Peter Feith, Lord Robertson's special envoy, has been rebuffed, that Kalashnikovs—mostly Chinese—are to be found all over the area, and that ground-safety zones are being abused, have you had any request from the Ministry of Defence for permission to make a statement about those dangerous events in the southern Balkans?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. By way of brief background, I have been receiving telephone calls all weekend from Eddisbury farmers about the foot and mouth crisis. Following clearance on one suspected case just two miles from my home, Cheshire remains, as of this morning, a clean county—in stark contrast to the 1967 outbreak, when many farms across Cheshire were devastated.
Given reports that carcases from Devon are going to Cheshire for rendering at the Widnes plant, the backlog of burning on farms, the shortage of manpower, sleepers and coal, the need for the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the insurance industry to check everything, and despite the superhuman efforts of vets, we need to know whether there will be a statement to address the serious concerns of Eddisbury farmers. They are receiving reports of carcases, lying on disinfected sawdust only, going through their clean county in lorries with open air vents and loose tarpaulins. Live animals are now coming from Scotland through affected areas in Cumbria to St. Asaph. Without assurances, the farmers of Cheshire, and those of Eddisbury in particular, are deeply concerned that, by such action, the clean county of Cheshire will be affected.

Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be reporting to the House this week. That will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to raise these matters with him.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), would you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the Tories have completely misread the procedure? They have bungled procedurally, allowing the Liberal Democrats to jump in to do what they themselves should have done.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into the argument.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), Mr. Speaker. My point concerns the procedure for getting in touch with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to foot and mouth.
I received this morning a phone call from Mr. Jan Rowe, a senior member of the National Farmers Union, about the Blakeney outbreak of foot and mouth in Gloucestershire. It is particularly serious because the person who owns the sheep in the Forest of Dean also has sheep running on the


two main rubbish tips in Gloucestershire. I understand that hundreds of lorries go to and from those tips each day without any precautions being taken. MAFF will not be able to inspect the sheep until Wednesday.
I immediately phoned the Minister' private office, to be asked by an official, "Have you rung your local animal health office?" I said, "Come on, I am a Member of Parliament. These are strategic issues which need to be dealt with centrally." He then told me, "I will get somebody to phone you back." Nobody rang me back.
I then telephoned the foot and mouth helpline, which is based in Yorkshire. The gentleman who answered the phone said, "It is no good phoning us: we are inundated with inquiries. Our information is way out of date; we are three days out of date on confirmed outbreaks of foot and mouth on farms." I said, "Thank you. You have given me all the information that I need to raise a point of order in the House this afternoon." He said, "I hope you will, and vociferously"—which I am doing now. We need a dedicated person in MAFF to deal with such serious points on foot and mouth—somebody at a senior level who can give us answers.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns have been noted.

Maria Eagle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the premeditated and yobbish behaviour of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and three of her Whip colleagues, who disrupted Standing Committee F on Thursday, do you have any plans to issue guidance to right hon. and hon. Members, and to members of the Chairmen's Panel, about the power that a Chairman has to direct the Serjeant at Arms to deal with the withdrawal of non-members of Standing Committees if they are disrupting proceedings? Please tell us whether you plan to issue such guidance; page 704 of "Erskine May" suggests that the House has made orders relating to such incidents in the past.

Mr. Speaker: The Chairmen's Panel consists of experienced Members. They do not need more guidance. The Chairman of the Committee concerned showed that he has all the experience that is needed. I would be insulting the members of the Chairmen's Panel if I gave them any more guidance.

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already raised a point of order. He will have to wait until the end of points of order. Members are rationed to one at a time.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns the behaviour of Members. You are old enough, as I am, to remember the Profumo inquiry. Over the weekend, there have been some serious allegations made in newspapers against the Foreign Secretary and his behaviour in the House. I shall not comment on those allegations. However, as the Foreign Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make any comment about a Member, he must write to me

about the matter. At the time of the Profumo affair, I was 17 years of age and I had more things on my mind than that affair.

Mr. Phil Hope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to a matter raised earlier, will you clarify what options are open to the House when four Members deliberately flouted the rules of the House by refusing to remove themselves from Standing Committee F last Thursday? It is particularly shocking that the leader of the rule-breaking rabble was the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). She deliberately broke the rules to prevent the democratic passage of a Bill through Committee; I know that you personally disapprove of that action. What sanctions do we have to punish the right hon. Lady and to prevent a recurrence of her appalling behaviour?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should read Friday's record of events. That is the best advice that I can give him.

Mr. Blunt: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which again I have given you notice. I have been passed a letter from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on House of Commons headed notepaper. I gave notice to the hon. Gentleman that I would be raising the point of order. The letter is marked "in confidence" and it is addressed to two of his constituents. It reads:
I am writing to ask for your help. The General Election is no more than six weeks away from being called. I can tell you confidentially that we have learned that Labour will be conducting extensive polling after the Budget on 7 March. If the results are positive, Tony Blair will call the Election on Monday 12 March.
It would appear that that polling has not gone terribly well.
The letter continues:
As things stand, my agent will not be able to give our printer the go ahead for printing my election address. My agent tells me that we are about £1,500 short of our target to cover the cost. That is why I am writing to you to ask if you would make a donation towards my election address …
I have two points of order. First, the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged to me that it was a mistake and that the letter should not have gone out on House of Commons headed paper. He is making arrangements to repay £1.20 to the House to cover the cost of the stationery. However, it is serious that a Member should importune people for party political funds on House of Commons paper. Is that sufficient recompense to the House, in your judgment?
Secondly, I presume that if the hon. Gentleman is writing to solicit funds for his re-election, his campaign to be elected as candidate for the Liberal party for Sutton and Cheam has begun, and that a record of his election expenses, including the cost of the letters, should also have begun.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. Concerning the use of stationery and postage, the regulations have been broken. The Serjeant at Arms has looked into the matter and I understand that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will repay all the costs of the stationery. That will be the end of the matter.

Air Travellers (Provision of Health Information)

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require air carriers to provide information to passengers on health risks associated with flying and to contribute to research into such risks.
I introduce the motion with sadness and regret—sadness because it relates to the tragic death of one of my constituents last summer, and regret because I fear that we will not get all the airline companies to co-operate on such a matter unless they are forced to take action by legislation or the prospect of legislation.
My constituent, John Anthony Thomas, of Flemingston in the Vale of Glamorgan, was just 30 years old. He was in the prime of life; he was perfectly fit. He was a policeman and had just undergone a five-year police health check and had a clean bill of health. He returned from a dream honeymoon in Honolulu with his new wife and, a couple of days after returning, dropped dead with a pulmonary embolism.
That would be a tragedy for any family. When the Thomases asked me to get involved with the case, I thought at first that it was just one of those human tragedies that can affect anyone, and that there is not much that we can do about it—except that the family told me that had the consultant pathologist not mentioned that he thought that the death was due to a long-haul flight, the Thomases would never have made the connection between their young son's death and his recent honeymoon holiday.
For me, that rang alarm bells. If the Thomases found out only by accident, how many hundreds or possibly thousands of people have died from the same condition, without any such connection being made? Checks are not made in the NHS or in other hospitals to establish whether sufferers of deep vein thrombosis have recently taken long-haul flights.
I found out from my first meeting with the Thomases that it was the personal belief of the same pathologists that as many as 20 per cent. of deaths through DVT handled by the NHS could be due to air travel. If that is true, many thousands of people could be dying, unaware of the risks that they had taken. I, for one, knew nothing about the problem until it came up as a constituency matter, and I suspect that many citizens still know nothing about the possible connection between DVT and long-haul flights.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has done quite a bit in the House on the matter, precisely because his wife had suffered from the condition following a flight. We do not know with certainty whether it is a major public health problem or whether it affects only a small minority of people. Some experts say that scores die from DVT; others say that thousands, or even many thousands, are dying from it.
We must establish scientifically and objectively the scale of the problem. I am delighted that the Select Committee in the House of Lords has introduced an extremely responsible paper calling for more research into this worrying and possibly major public health problem. My Bill attempts to prevent a repetition of mistakes made when we were in exactly the same position regarding the

assessment of the implications of other public health problems. In the case of BSE, there was a long time lag before the effects first became apparent and we discovered that many people were dying and, indeed, may still die. In the case of the asbestos industry and the asbestosis connected directly to it, it took decades to make the connection. Some would say that the public health hazards caused by smoking and its connection with lung cancer took even longer.
My Bill proposes that we do not make the same mistakes again. We should undertake research now, but also take sensible, measured steps to ensure that people do not die or place themselves at risk unnecessarily during long-haul air travel. My Bill calls on the airline companies to provide up-to-date and accurate information on current health risks. Some airline companies that recently decided to do that because the public profile of the problem has been raised have, I fear, been slightly disingenuous. As I understand it, the information that they provide is misleading, inadequate and possibly dangerous.
It is said, for instance, that passengers on long-haul flights should stand in front of their seats periodically and exercise their legs and feet. If hon. Members do not already know it, that is virtually impossible in economy class seats where, one hour into the flight, most of the passengers are asleep the seat in front is reclined, and one is more or less pinned to one's seat for however long the journey takes. The exercises are thus impossible. Worryingly, there are also other examples of inaccurate and misleading advice. I wonder what the airlines have got to hide and why they are providing inadequate information.
The second part of the Bill calls on the airlines to update information when, following research, we discover the scale of the problem. Plenty of information is available: the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy has produced a very good leaflet on steps that passengers can take and exercises that they can do to avoid the effect of so-called traveller's thrombosis. It is looking for sponsorship so that is can distribute those leaflets freely to all airline companies to ensure that all passengers can read the information and take precautionary exercise.
It is not just about exercise. One can take steps to minimise the risk, such as taking aspirin before the journey to thin the blood slightly, or wearing compression stockings during the flight to prevent blood pooling in the bottom of the legs and feet, which causes thrombosis and embolism. That is simple, basic advice and, as we learn more about the condition, airline companies have an obligation to distribute information to their passengers to reduce their risk of suffering from it.
Finally, the Bill aims to get airline carriers and companies to co-operate with any research into the scale of the problem. Again, there are worrying signs that our airline companies are not co-operating, and I must ask myself why. Worryingly, they are not providing ready access to passenger lists and medical records and are involved in limiting research. The Bill therefore includes three measured proposals which could make the difference between life and death.
I shall finish by quoting from a letter that I received from the mother of John Anthony Thomas last year. It was the first communication that I had received from her, and in it she said:
1 beg you Mr. Smith, please do not let my son's death be in vain and do all in your power to ensure airlines face their responsibility for the health and well-being of their passengers.
That letter came from a distraught mother. My asking the House to accept this motion is a direct result of that plea, and of my promise to her and to her family that I would do all that I could to prevent any future deaths.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Smith, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Dr. Howard Stoate, Dr. Brian Iddon, Dr. Desmond Turner, Dr. David Clark.

AIR TRAVELLERS (PROVISION OF HEALTH INFORMATION)

Mr. John Smith accordingly presented a Bill to require air carriers to provide information to passengers on health risks associated with flying and to contribute to research into such risks: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 59].

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 March].

Orders of the Day — AMENDMENT OF THE LAW

Motion made, and Question proposed,
(1) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.
(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) to (6) below, this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

(a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;
(b) for refunding an amount of tax;
(c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable;
(d) for any relief, other than a relief which—

(i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description. and
(ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.

(3) Paragraph (2) above does not exclude the making of amendments with respect to value added tax—

(a) providing for refunds of the kind specified in paragraph (4) below;
(b) providing for that tax to be charged at a reduced rate of 5 per cent. on supplies of the descriptions specified in paragraph (5) below (and on equivalent acquisitions and importations); or
(c) making provision of the kind authorised by paragraph (6) below.

(4) The refunds mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) above are refunds of value added tax where—

(a) that tax is chargeable on a supply to, or an acquisition or importation by, a museum or gallery, and
(b) the supply, acquisition or importation is attributable to supplies of free rights of admission to the museum or gallery.

(5) The supplies mentioned in paragraph (3)(b) above are—

(a) supplies, in the course of a conversion of a building (or part of a building), of services related to the conversion if after the conversion the building (or part) contains living accommodation;
(b) supplies, in the course of the renovation or alteration (including the extension) of a dwelling that has been unoccupied for at least three years, of services related to the renovation or alteration;
(c) supplies of goods by a person making a supply of services within sub-paragraph (a) or (b) above if—

(i) those services include the incorporation of the goods into the building concerned (or its site), and
(ii) the goods are building materials within the meaning of Group 5 of Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994;

(d) supplies of children's car seats.

(6) The provision authorised by this paragraph is provision re-enacting, without altering any person's liability to value added tax or the amount of any such liability, provisions providing for that tax to be charged at a reduced rate of 5 per cent. on certain supplies, acquisitions and importations.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

Question again proposed.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): In opening this third day of the Budget debate, I make no apology for repeating the accolades that are due to the Chancellor for the way in which he has ensured that our economy is offering prosperity, stability and success for the future. By choice, not by accident, and by conscious and deliberate action, the Government have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the fruits of stability and competence can be reinvested to bring greater prosperity in the years to come.
In lifting debt from the shoulders of the British people and in enabling us to pay our contribution in lifting debt from the developing world, we can ensure that we apply the people's money to the people's priorities. Those priorities, in health, education, regeneration and employment, are critical to a decent quality of life and to a future to be proud of.
In ensuring that we can invest in improved services, and in avoiding the failures of the past, we are turning the fruits of employment and the reductions in benefit payments into an ability to re-apply them for further employment and for reducing the need for those benefits. We have already spelled out the reduction, from 42p in the pound to 16p, of tax revenue spent on debt and on the payment of unnecessary benefits. That is a foundation on which we can build by reinvesting in social cohesion, and today I shall spell out some of the measures that we are taking to underpin that investment to ensure that quality teaching is in place and that we can recruit and retain the teachers that we need.
Having ameliorated the worst evidence of poverty through the measures that the Chancellor has taken since the election in 1997, and through the future measures spelled out in last Wednesday's Budget, we can now begin to concentrate on investment to overcome the need for ameliorative measures by tackling the causes as well as the symptoms. By investing in education and skills, self-reliance and independence, by liberating the talents of all our people so that they can contribute to their own well-being and reach out and contribute to the wider community, by investing in future success and, in particular, by investing in jobs and community regeneration, we can make it possible for those who follow us to continue an upward spiral of investment in key services, rather than the stop-go policies of the past.
Tackling the legacy of neglect has been the major task of the Government; avoiding its recurrence will be the task of the next Parliament. That is why the extra investment of a third of a billion pounds each year in education and extra investment in skills is so important. It is linked with further cash for employment and for our wider welfare-to-work measures. The Opposition would cut, whereas we are reconstructing. The Opposition were prepared to sacrifice services, whereas we are using them not only to ensure the liberation of the talents of the individual but to contribute to economic well-being, because economic prosperity and social well-being go hand in hand.
In the Chamber a few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Secretary of State, painted a picture—a distorted portrait—of my leadership

and that of my colleagues, describing it as centralist. She evoked the image of "Thunderbirds". I reminded Lady Penelope that her party introduced the national curriculum, centrally directed tests, the Office for Standards in Education, the predecessors to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Funding Agency for Schools. [Interruption.] Yes, I did pick up the issue of grant-maintained schools and, yes, Conservative Members introduced the Teacher Training Agency. Lord Dearing, to whom I pay tribute once again, managed to dig them out of a hole by slimming down some measures. 
This Government Lave taken further steps to lighten the national curriculum, slim down the TT'A, amalgamate the two predecessor bodies into the QCA, lighten the inspection regime and ensure that it falls less frequently on schools that are doing well and provide through the literacy and numeracy strategies the relevant support to make the tests attainable.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State talks about lightening the administrative burden, but is he aware that teachers in Staffordshire, whether they work in a comprehensive school or not, say that they are bogged down by the administrative burden? Does he not understand the betray 11 that teachers feel, especially given the promise that he and his team made in 1997, when they said that they would produce a new funding system, which was not delivered, whereby Staffordshire would not remain second from bottom in funding per pupil? The combination of burden, red tape and low funding in Staffordshire remains.

Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased that the legacy of low funding is nowhere near what it was when we took office in 1997. Direct funding to head teachers, which we enhanced last week to an average of £70,000 for a secondary school and an average of £24,000 for a primary school for running costs, will have helped schools in Staffordshire as it has helped schools across the country. The two-thirds reduction in paperwork over the past six months—the figure for primary schools is 40 per cent.—will have helped to raduce the time taken to access that paperwork.
Paperwork for literacy and numeracy—for example, the grammar guide, which was sent out last term—is not bureaucracy or administration, but direct support. I again make the point to the House that those who want to direct teachers to teach in a particular way and who want to toughen up on phonics should not also claim that teachers should not be directed on how to teach. Those who are prepared to abandon phonics, decent spelling and grammar and the literacy hour should stand up and be counted.
I have made the point before, but it is worth making again, that Conservative Members can hardly claim that they introduced the literacy hour, given that the hon. Member for Maidenhead famously said that 60 minutes is too long for the literacy hour, thus redefining a metric hour, which no doubt will be an interesting feature of any debate on Europe.

Mr. John Bercow: The Secretary of State referred to the Teacher Training Agency, and he always tries to convey the impression that he is a sound traditionalist, although it is obvious that Mr. Chris Woodhead, among others, is not so persuaded. Is the right


hon. Gentleman aware of the abominable observations of those three supposed specialists in the teaching of reading, Kimberley, Meek and Miller, who are on record as saying:
Within the psycho-semiotic framework, the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct where events are played out and children must therefore learn to position themselves in three interlocking contexts.
What assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give that such drivel, which has done so much damage to the life chances of a generation of children in our state schools, is not continuing to spread like a disease?

Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his reading of that piece of psycho-babble.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend quoted it from memory.

Mr. Blunkett: From memory! That is a remarkable achievement. I reinforce my congratulations. What a smart and able Member the hon. Member for Buckingham is, and what a smart Alec, too. As far as I am aware, the three authors to whom he referred had nothing to do with the literacy hour. Fortunately, the phrase that he memorised and quoted has not passed over my desk.

Mr. Bercow: 1 am glad to hear it.

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the accolade from the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad to hear it, too.
Having disposed of that matter, we can get back to reality, which is the £200 million allocated last Wednesday—£100 million of revenue for running costs, and £100 million of devolved capital for heads and governors to use. Incidentally, that brings the amount of devolved capital available for investment in repair and renewal during the spending period 2003–04 to £600 million a year. That compares with £683 million, which was the total for capital investment in repair, renewal and new build for the whole of England in 1996–97. It clearly shows the transformation that has taken place as we move to an £8.5 billion investment in repair and renewal of our schools, which will help teachers to do the job better, will make the teaching profession more attractive and will ensure that youngsters get the environment they deserve.
Today, we are introducing new measures. Conservative Members raised the issue of administration and bureaucracy. I can announce a £35 million investment from the capital modernisation fund, which is entirely new money that was not announced last Wednesday. I am grateful to my Treasury colleagues for releasing £35 million for us to invest in a new management information system. It will enable us to ensure that we can collect, collate and transfer data, and thus avoid the statistical nightmare of constant data collection for different purposes. It will be possible to transfer data between schools and age groups, so that the unique pupil number and added value measures can be introduced more effectively; so that collated information on children in the primary sector can be transferred easily and quickly to secondary schools; and so that we can reduce the volume of form filling to about one working week per head per year, which will make a substantial contribution to reducing pressure on heads and teachers. I am pleased that we have been able to make a start on that.
I am also able to give details of the additional £200 million programme over three years, which was mooted in the Chancellor's Budget statement, for recruitment and retention measures for teachers.

Mr. Phil Willis: My party strongly supports the introduction of a bureaucracy-buster and the passing on of records, which is an excellent initiative, but how does the Secretary of State intend to commission the work? One of the great problems in the past has been that schools and education authorities have all gone their own way. Unless the software is consistent, the system will fall down when children transfer from one authority or school to another.

Mr. Blunkett: I entirely agree that there has been a problem, although, in the context of Government as a whole, my Department's record on implementing new technology—in the Student Loans Company or in the development of the national grid for learning—is not bad. In the latter context, we shall want to move quickly, in consultation with representatives of heads and with the e-envoy, to ensure that we get it right. Compatibility is an important factor.
The retention and recruitment package will build on steps that we have already taken. Whatever people may feel about the immediate problem of recruitment, there has been a remarkable turnaround in the attitude to teaching, especially among young people. I would not go so far as to say that teaching has become fashionable again, but a 19 per cent. uplift in applications for the next academic year and a remarkable increase in the number of inquiries constitute symbols of hope.
This time last year, there were 51,000 inquiries; this year, there have been 141,000. The 19 per cent. uplift in applications for September—which, of course, will not feed through in terms of teachers in the classroom for another 18 months—includes a 14 per cent. increase in maths applications, a 27 per cent. increase in science applications and a 7 per cent. increase in modern languages applications. That is a substantial and welcome improvement, which we must build on as quickly and effectively as possible; but we must also keep teachers in the classroom, which is why our measures are about retention as well as recruitment.
It will certainly not help if teachers walk away from children, leaving others to cover classes, denying the children an education and reducing their chances of future success. It will not help those children to do well in tests, GCSEs and A-levels. No one will gain unless those in classrooms act as professionals and ensure that cover is provided while we take the measures that have been demanded to lighten the pressure and ensure that enough teachers are in the classrooms. I thank all the professionals who have been doing that job—under considerable strain in some schools—and appeal to others not to make matters worse by walking away from children who need teachers to cover their classes.
This is a real problem, which arises from decades of under-recruitment and loss to the profession. Together, we need to do something substantial to ensure that, while we await the outcome of new applicants' training, a return to teaching is an attractive option.
Two years ago we introduced "golden hellos", and enhanced them for shortage subjects. We introduced training bursaries to give postgraduates an incentive


to train. We introduced the graduate teacher programme, which has been such a success in the development of in-school training, and the new training schools: it is working extremely well, as I saw for myself this morning when I visited Southfields community school. This time last year, on the back of the Budget of 2000, we put a further £180 million into the programme. I believe that we are beginning to turn the corner and that the success of our measures is shining through, but the time scales are agin us.

Mrs. Theresa May: Along with others, I raised a number of problems relating to the graduate teacher programme during a recent Opposition day debate on the teaching profession. We mentioned the calculation of subjects that would qualify for the programme, and various other issues to do with the qualifications of those entering it. The Secretary of State undertook to tackle those problems; what has he done?

Mr. Blunkett: I was planning to deal with that matter later, but I shall do so now. The hon. Lady proposed to slim down the administration and application of school-based graduate teacher programmes. I am pleased to tell her that we will take the action that she advocated. I said that we would examine her proposals, and I meant it. We have accepted them and shall implement them. They are part of the programme that we are announcing today.
As we are on the subject, I can also announce that we shall substantially increase the graduate teacher programme by adding another 570 places, bringing the total number to 2,250. That will make a substantial contribution to enabling people with experience to receive a salary while training and to encouraging them. The increase will commence at Easter.
I am seeking to ensure that we do not treat the issue as a football to be kicked around. I am prepared to listen and to learn. I shall continue to offer everyone—Members and members of the public—the opportunity to offer ideas on how to deal with teacher shortages in some of our schools and some of our regions. I assure the House that we will work with people and take those ideas on board.

Mr. Willis: In our previous debate on the subject, the issue of the degree requirements for those who wish specifically to access key stage 3 teacher training was raised. Graduates who had not trained in a national curriculum subject were being denied access to training. The Secretary of State said that he would investigate the issue and report back. Has there been any progress on it?

Mr. Blunkett: Although I shall try to avoid reporting back on everything today, I shall do my best, so that hon. Members can tick off the boxes. I acknowledged that there was an issue, and we have investigated it. We have also agreed with the Teacher Training Agency and institutions that if the course content of a degree is sufficient to provide assurances that an individual has the necessary background and foundation to take on a specialism, that individual may access training for the specialism. In our previous debate, a psychology degree was cited as an example. If graduates are able to show that their psychology degree involved sufficient statistics content to enable them to undertake maths training, they should be able to participate in such training.
I hope that that assures the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that we are trying to balance the desire to ensure quality with the relevance of an individual's background. We are trying also to offer upgrade courses in specialised subjects, so that there is not an automatic cut-off for applicants. Those who are particularly committed and interested should be able to take in-service courses, making it possible for them to transfer to those specialisms.
In some schools and some parts of the country, non-specialists have had to take on specialist teaching to ensure that cover is provided. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, as an ex-teacher, will be aware that that has happened for many years. As someone who taught in a college of technology, I was aware that it was happening around me. I shall never forget being asked to teach law. I said that although I had A-level law, I was not intent on teaching it. I think that many teachers have found themselves in a similar position.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are victims of our own success? The simple fact that an extra 1.1 million people are in jobs, that wages are increasing and that there are pressures on housing markets in the south-east perhaps helps to explain why, although we are investing enormous sums in teacher supply, it is still difficult to square the circle. Although standards axe rising, there are still many options for good teachers.

Mr. Blunkett: There are indeed. By trying to recruit more teachers, rather than fewer; by recruiting an extra 7,000 teachers in the past two years while seeking to reduce class sizes and ensure not only in-service training for mainstream teachers but training for supply teachers; by putting in place booster classes that are attractive to supply teachers; and by offering professional development courses that teachers find attractive, but which require cover, we are perhaps making a rod for our own back in trying to match supply and demand. That is particularly true in high-cost area; in which attractive salaries can be paid and there are additional costs. That is why the review body report recommended substantial uplifts of 30 per cent. in London weighting and outer-London weighting and retention bonuses of £5,000 a year to be rolled into a £15,000 package of retention over three years. That is why performance-related pay, which we introduced, is so critical. It offers not simply an uplift of £2,000 for good teachers but access to new pay scales of an additional £4,000. That will make a difference to retaining as well as attracting teachers.
This afternoon's package will deal with the problem of how we get people back into the profession now. The immediate £2,000 incentive—£4,000 for shortage subjects, which matches the bonus that is already in place for new recruits to the profession—will, I hope, be an attractive proposition, but it needs to be matched by other measures. Those measures will include an acceleration of the graduate teacher programme and a £35 million programme of funded measures this year, to be matched by at least £35 million in the next financial year. The money will go directly to head teachers and governors, without bureaucracy and administrative difficulty. There has to be co-ordination. We want a light-touch approach at local authority or area level, using the recruitment managers who are already paid for by the Department and are in place.
The money will enable head teachers to pay for additional housing costs and for care components, if needed, to help returners with the costs of child care and of caring for older relatives. It will enable travel costs to be met and changes to incremental scales to be offered. The scale on which a post is offered can be changed to meet the needs of a returner, whether that person has just had a family or took early retirement.
I was tickled to hear that one of the agencies had written to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, an ex-head teacher, to ask whether he would like to come back to the profession. I gather that he has reserved his position until after the election—a wise man. I have been out of the profession for so long that no one has sent me anything, but one never knows.
The new funding will be made available immediately, but through the review body we will simultaneously consult to avoid any misunderstandings or allegations that we did not consult. We will ensure that the money is made available as speedily as possible to those who return to the profession.
I hope that the measures will enable us to say to people on the edge of returning to the profession that this is an appropriate moment to do so. We will offer free update courses of six weeks and child care provision. We will also pay a bursary during those six weeks so that there is no disadvantage to the family.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I congratulate the Secretary of State on what he and his colleagues have been doing to improve standards, particularly with regard to the recent intervention on behalf of schools in Thurrock. That was timely and much appreciated by parents and me.
Will my right hon. Friend undertake to revisit a problem with the allocation of scan e resources from the Department? I understand that the indices include the number of children who have free school meals and levels of employment. In my area, although unemployment levels are not high, a lack of wealth and opportunity is disguised by the large retail sector, which pays relatively low salaries. The numbers of the many children who are greatly deprived are not reflected in the indices of free school meals and unemployment. The allocation of funds needs fine tuning to reflect tradition ally poor areas.

Mr. Blunkett: There is always a problem with crude measures versus complexity—between trying to set up simple measures of deprivation and the complicated evaluations that inevitably have to be dealt with through greater central administration. There is a dichotomy between what is fair and what is simple, as I can well understand, for example, in relation to the pupil learning credits that we announced in the Green Paper.
This afternoon's package will be aimed at areas where vacancies exist; it will be tailored both to particular geographical areas and to schools with the biggest problems. The money will follow the problem and will thus be related not to prosperity or bidden deprivation but to the specific problem that we want to overcome. As with other measures in the Green Paper, we shall apply some of the resources proposed in last week's Budget, together with the spending review allocations, to ensure that we can be flexible on other measures hat will be attractive and fair to people coming into the profession.
As I said, some hon. Members are concerned about undergraduates taking BEd and BA courses. We want to use some of the Budget resources for experiments in the fourth year of such undergraduate courses to enable students to achieve qualified teacher status early and move into the classroom as appropriate, and to help them financially. I look forward to being able to move on that matter, on which there will be further consultation.
I hope that this afternoon's package will enable us, once again, to appeal to people to work together, rather than against each other, to solve a genuine difficulty. Success breeds success, as schools show through their higher standards and achievement; and, with the additional support and resources that have been made available, they will be able to tell others that teaching is an excellent profession to be in. We can see from the increased number of applications that young people believe that. We can reach out to former teachers and draw them back into the profession.
We cannot solve all the problems that arise from the success of the economy in parts of the country where prosperity puts enormous pressure on housing costs and offers alternative employment. However, we can take steps to match that. We are putting in place the precise measures that most people wanted, ensuring that recruitment, retention and reward go hand in hand. In a spirit of collaboration, we are challenging the main Opposition party to say whether it will match the funding that we are putting in place. The commitment of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor applies only to money allocated to schools. However, there will be allocations from the DFEE budget for many of the measures that we are taking, including the information technology package to reduce administration. Given the extra resources that we are putting in, in the event of the Opposition miraculously finding themselves on the Government Benches, it would be interesting to hear where the cuts of £8 billion and tax cuts of £8 billion would be imposed. I doubt that Conservative Members will answer the question because no one in Conservative central office has worked it out yet. Everyone outside knows perfectly well that the sums do not add up.
The foundations that we are laying today will carry forward opportunity for all our children, investment in schools across the country, greater delegation of budgets and the freedom of heads to use them. We are introducing measures that directly address the problem of recruitment. We are overcoming the legacy of years of neglect that we inherited. We are very pleased indeed to have been able to do that. I am grateful to the Chancellor for enabling me to announce these measures this afternoon.

Mrs. Theresa May: Four years ago, this Labour Government were elected with the priority, "education, education, education." Four wasted years later, they have manifestly failed to deliver on that promise. That is clear to anyone who visits schools and listens to teachers complaining about the burden of bureaucracy; to head teachers complaining about Government interference; to governors complaining about the overload of red tape; to pupils complaining about disruptive children being kept in class, damaging their education and that of others; or to parents worried about teacher shortages that are creating difficulties in their local schools.
Jenny Short, the head teacher of Loddon junior school in Earley, wrote in her open letter to the Prime Minister,
As a head teacher of a junior school, I am at a complete loss as to how to cope with the staffing problems I now face.
She set out those staffing problems and continued:
Whilst I shall continue to make every effort to cover absence in the event of illness, if this proves to be impossible, children will be sent home.
She has subsequently been in touch with me and said:
I leave my school after five years and two successful OFSTEDs exhausted and disillusioned. Once we could choose our teachers carefully with due regard for the balance of age and experience, ability and expertise, personality and potential to fit in with our high standards and ethos. We could build on our successes, make real improvements …Now …the daily staffing crises reduce us all to firefighters where strategic planning and real improvements are impossible".
On a doorstep in Hurst during the weekend, a parent told me, "The Government promised education would be their priority. I haven't seen any evidence of it."
So as we consider the Budget's impact on education, what is the end-of-term report on the Government and the Secretary of State? "More red tape—done. Increased interference from Whitehall—done. Teachers leaving in droves—done. Larger secondary classes—done. More disruptive pupils in class—done. Grammar schools under threat—done. Abolition of grant-maintained status—done. Fiddled figures—done."
The legacy of the Government's four wasted years is a national crisis of teacher shortages, a demoralised teaching profession, schools threatened with four-day weeks, standards damaged and children's education suffering—for the Government, who came in promising so much, have delivered little, not just in education. The Secretary of State did not refer to any of the comments on the new deal that the Chancellor made in his Budget speech, because the Government have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the new deal—a scheme that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown has directly resulted in only 13,000 jobs.
The evidence shows that the new deal works when the private sector is involved, using its expertise and flexibility in the interests of unemployed people—for example, Reed Executive in Hackney and Pertemps in Birmingham. We have seen what the private sector can deliver. That is why we will replace the new deal with "Britain works", which will involve private sector expertise and will focus on getting people into jobs as soon as possible and helping them to stay in them. "Britain works" will be a better deal for unemployed people, for employers and for taxpayers. The new deal is a broken pledge.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Lady agree that the shadow Chancellor's policy of keeping inflation below 2 per cent. would inevitably drive up interest rates, thus increasing unemployment and resulting in less money for education?

Mrs. May: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consider the inflation rate at the moment. I understand that it is less than 2 per cent., so perhaps he should reconsider his intervention. He should look at the new deal figures,

which show that the programme has failed to provide jobs for young long-term unemployed people; that the rate of decline in long-term youth unemployment has slowed under this Government in comparison with what was happening during the last years of the Conservative Government; and that where the new deal works, it does so because the private sector is involved. With "Britain works", we shall ensure that the private sector is involved, to get people into jobs.

Mr. Blunkett: Why has long-term youth unemployment fallen by 75 per cent" Why did the report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research say that the new deal has added £500 million steady state a year to GDP? Why did it acknowledge that more than 200,000 youngsters have got into jobs faster? Why are 274,000 youngsters who had been unemployed for more than six months now in work when they were not when we came into office? And why are employment zones working so well that even the Conservative party cannot think of abolishing them?

Mrs. May: The figure from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research is 13,000 new jobs from the new deal. The report showed that hundreds and millions of pounds hive been spent to find 13,000 jobs. Unemployed people deserve a better deal. They do not want to be put on training programmes only to find that they come off them when they go back on to benefit because there is no job for them. The new deal has become a revolving door for too many of the long-term unemployed, and that is why it needs replacing with a better scheme. "Britain works" will be that better scheme. The new deal is a broken pledge.
Let us consider the Government's education promises and look back on their early claims about extra education spending. Three years ago, in the first comprehensive spending review, the Government announced an extra £19 billion for education. We soon saw how wrong that figure was. As The Guardian said:
Mr. Blunkett's claim to be spending an extra £19 billion has collapsed in empty rhetoric".
The Times reported:
Mr. Brown added together increases over three years to produce his global figures of ti billion more for education … This is misleading since it represents triple counting".
[Interruption.] The Secretary of State seems to be commenting on the author of The Guardian report, but perhaps he would like to comment on the rebuke that he received from the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which said that there was
no cash bonanza of the type which newspaper headlines might suggest".
True to form, the Government have been up to their old tricks. They are perhaps getting a little better at hiding them—as they do in table C13, on page 202 of the Red Book. The Chancellor announced an extra £1 billion of spending on education, but a comparison of the figures on page 202 of the Red Book with the latest comprehensive spending review show s that, as a result of the Budget, the increase in education spending over the next three years is actually £200 million—not £1 billion. The answer is that one simply cannot believe a word that the Government say about their spending.
That is not the only' way in which the Government are fiddling the figures. Ministers welcomed the School Teachers' Pay Review Body recent pay award for


teachers, but they did not tell anyone that they were not going to fund the increases fully. Local education authorities will have to find the extra money, and schools will see their budgets being cut to provide the pay for teachers.
Ministers claimed to put £65 million into school budgets this year for the new AS-levels, but how many schools have seen a penny of that money? Their teaching costs have gone up, their resources costs have gone up and their examination costs have gone up, but the Government have not provided them with the extra funding to pay for that.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: May I remind the hon. Lady that I spent some years in local government? In every one of the 18 years of the Conservative Government, my local authority had to find a proportion of teachers' salaries—and she can check that point out. She should not complain about this Government when they are trying to do something to right that wrong.

Mrs. May: The Government are not doing that; that is the whole point. Local authorities today have to scrape around for the extra cash because the Government are not providing it. The Government hide and fiddle the figures so that schools do not know exactly what they will get, and fail to provide the funding that they promise for schools. The expectations of teachers and parents have been raised, but that is why they are now becoming totally disillusioned and fed up with the Government, They have heard so many promises on which the Government have completely failed to deliver.
We should not be surprised by that, given that, when the Government claimed to be introducing fairer funding, they said that more money would go direct to schools. while at the same time specifying 89 categories of spending that local authorities could hold back from schools. The Government promised that they would change the standard spending assessment within a year of coming to office but they have done nothing about it. Few schools in the numerous authorities—such as Wiltshire, Worcestershire, Dorset, Leicestershire and indeed Staffordshire, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) referred—that have been disadvantaged by that calculation think that funding today is fairer. That is certainly not what I heard last week from heads in Wiltshire who face problems and budget deficits because of the difficulties caused by the Government's lack of funding. In any case, how much of the money announced in the Budget will be top-sliced from local authorities and redistributed to them as new money?
What about the way in which the Government tell schools how to spend their money? During a visit to a secondary school in Formby last week, I was told by the head, "I've got four pages of A4 which describe all the different funding streams that come into this school. One page covers the funding streams over which we have discretion; three pages cover the funding streams over which we have no discretion." The Secretary of State referred to the Chancellor's Budget announcement of an extra sum that will go directly to schools, but that is only true of about 1 per cent. of the money. Money should go directly to schools so that heads have the freedom to spend it in the best interests of children in their classrooms: they should receive 100 per cent. of it

directly. Heads should have the freedom to spend the money on what they know is needed in their schools in the interests of their pupils.
The Secretary of State mentioned devolved capital. At a primary school in Woodley this morning, the head told me, "It's all very well talking about this devolved capital, but the problem is that I am only allowed to spend it in chunks of £10,000 and then only on certain priority areas. I can think of a lot of things I want to spend the money on, but I am not allowed to." We are far from the Secretary of State's claim that the people's money is being spent on the people's priority. Instead of the people's money being spent on schools' priorities, it is being spent on Labour's priorities.
It would be unfair to suggest that the Government have not increased spending on education, however. They have increased the amount that is spent on advertising in the Department for Education and Employment and the money that is wasted on bureaucracy. During the past four years, the Government have introduced 530 regulations. In the past year, they have sent out a directive a day to teachers. They have published well over 2,000 press releases and goodness knows how many of the Secretary of State's speeches have been published in glossy booklets. Increased spin—done.
At the top of the Government's list of achievements, however, is the increase in bureaucracy, red tape and paperwork that they have imposed on teachers. The Secretary of State mentioned reducing bureaucracy. In the Green Paper that was published a few weeks ago, the Government claim that they have reduced the number of pages of material sent to primary schools by 1,170 pages to just 490, but it was their fault in the first place that those schools were receiving nearly 2,000 pages of circulars telling them what to do.
What about the time that that bureaucracy, which keeps teachers away from the core job of teaching children, takes up? The Government say in the Green Paper that the standards fund will be changed and not all the money will go directly to schools. Some categories will remain as they are, but the system is apparently being changed to save time in schools. However, according to the Government, schools have spent three months filling in forms for the standards fund. That is hardly a reduction in bureaucracy.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend's concerns reflect those that hundreds of teachers throughout my constituency—from north to south and from west to east—have put to me over the past four years. Is she aware of a written answer given by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) that said:
The number of people leaving a profession may be taken as an indicator of morale."—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 65W.]
Given that the vacancy situation is three times worse in the capital than at national level and that one fifth of people who leave their posts are leaving the profession altogether, is that not the most damning indictment of the continuing failure of this Administration?

Mrs. May: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a telling intervention. It seems that the Minister of State, Home Office knows a great deal more than the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about what is happening


in the education system today. The problem is that people are leaving the profession because of bureaucracy and red tape.
One has only to look at the 2 March edition of The Times Educational Supplement, which has a front-page heading, "Crisis? What crisis?" What annoys teachers, head teachers, governors and parents is that unlike the Minister of State, Home Office, the Secretary of State fails to recognise the impact of his policies on the morale of the profession and the crisis that his actions have generated in our schools. The headlines inside the TES say, "Morale plummets as shortages rise" and "Official denials only add insult to injury". The head teacher of New college, Leicester says:
We'll reach meltdown unless a miracle happens by September.
The head teacher of the Malling school in Maidstone says:
Don't even let me hear Estelle Morris say again 'there's not a crisis'. Come and spend a week in Kent.
That is what is happening in our schools under the Labour Government.
The Secretary of State tells us that everything is all right because the number of applications at the graduate teacher training registry has gone up. If we look back over the four years of this Government, we see that there are fewer applications than in 1997. Applications to teach maths have fallen by 21 per cent. since that year: applications to teach modern languages have fallen by 26 per cent. and applications to teach English have gone down by 19 per cent.
Despite all the cash incentives and all the money that the Government claim to be spending on the problem, teachers are still not coming forward. Teacher applications have fallen and teachers are leaving the profession because they are demoralised by the red tape and paperwork that the Government have imposed and because the Government's interference means that they can no longer get on with the job that they want to do, which is teaching children.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend also comment on the management of the Department? I have just received two written answers to a parliamentary question. I asked the Secretary of State when he would reply to my letters dated 8 November and 21 September 2000 concerning the exclusion from holiday play schemes of children with medical conditions. I wonder if my hon. Friend can help me, because I have had two replies to the same question. The first says:
I replied to the hon. Member on Friday 9 March".
The second says:
I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
Both those answers have just arrived on my desk. Can my hon. Friend tell me which is correct? Do I have a reply or not?

Mrs. May: I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend that I know the Secretary of State's mind no better than it seems he or his Ministers do. My hon. Friend makes a telling point about the bureaucracy in the Department—the very bureaucracy that causes problems for our schools and teachers. I can only suggest to him that perhaps the people

who were supposed to be responding properly to his question were too busy drafting yet another circular to send to teachers.
We know that because of the shortage of teachers many schools have been able to operate without sending children home only because of the large number of supply teachers from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other countries. Unfortunately, those schools may soon find that they face another problem. An article in Sydney's The Sun-Herald yesterday said:
Australian teachers recruited to work in British schools are quitting in increasing numbers because of poor behaviour by students and alien working conditions.
The headmaster of Chalvedon school and sixth form college in Essex, who recruited nine Australians, finds five months on that four of them have left. As another teacher said:
Staff shortages are so severe that we are getting Australian teachers who get off the plane one day and are literally standing in front of a class the next".
That is the state to which the Secretary of State has brought our education system in his four wasted years in office.
Let us look at funding for schools and bureaucracy. We know that the Government will never give schools all the money or stop the bureaucracy, because they simply do not trust teachers or parents. The Secretary of State referred in his speech to liberating the talents of individuals. I hardly think that his proposals for advanced specialist schools in the Green Paper represent "liberating the talents of individuals". Advanced specialist schools will be able to
volunteer to take on a number of innovative ideas".
Good—I am in favour of innovative ideas in education. However, as we read on, we learn that they can only do so
from a menu developed centrally".
Yet again, the Goverrment are obsessed with centralising and interfering, rather than letting schools get on with doing what they know is right for children in their classrooms.
As the former chief inspector of schools said:
David Blunkett has presided over a set of initiatives that has wasted taxpayers' mom .y, distracted teachers from their real responsibilities and encapsulated the worst of the discredited ideology that has done so much damage since the 1960s".
That is what this Government have done instead of delivering on education.

Mr. Blunkett: I should be ever so grateful if the hon. Lady would tell me whether she agrees with one or two of the initiatives to which she is referring, such as the excellence in cities programme, the new deal for schools, the national grid for learning and the reduction in class size—all of which were listed as initiatives over and above the two with which the former chief inspector of schools agreed. Does she think that all or any of those should have been initiated, or would she abolish them?

Mrs. May: The Secretary of State still does not get the point. The point is that schools should be given all of their budget and allowed to spend it on what they think is right for children—not on what the Government think is right. Head teachers constantly tell me that they want the ability


to spend the money that is due to their school in the way that they think fit—in the interests not of the Government but of children.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Lady clear up a misunderstanding, probably on my part? Will central funds be the same for each child in a primary school and for each child in a secondary school, wherever in the United Kingdom that school may be?

Mrs. May: No, the national funding formula will take account of some differential needs. I am happy to clear that up for the hon. Gentleman.
The next Conservative Government will get rid of the endless bureaucracy that takes teachers' time and resources and means that money is not spent in the best interests of children. We are absolutely clear that we will match the money that the Government are spending, and are proposing to spend, on schools. That will include the increases to which the Secretary of State referred in his speech today, which were announced in the Budget. Perhaps more important, we will tackle serious reform of education by devolving all budgets to schools and by ensuring that money which is currently held back by local education authorities and central Government goes to schools. That will mean hundreds of extra pounds per pupil for schools. 
We are not just about devolving money. Head teachers should be given the freedom to do the job for which they were trained. A head teacher from Essex wrote to me recently:
We as head teachers need more finance into the school with the freedom to be creative with it to suit our needs. We need less paperwork and more encouragement as a profession".
The Secretary of State seems not to understand when teachers' representatives tell him that the introduction of the various initiatives that he has described will not bring teachers back into the profession or help to recruit more of them. Potential teachers do not want to join a profession in which they will be the mouthpieces of bureaucrats in the town hall and at Whitehall.
As the staff at Willowbank junior school said to me this morning, they long to bring creativity and spontaneity, which are now being pushed out because of the imposition of targets by the Government, back into the classroom. The Government are imposing pressure on schools to do things in the way they want. Teachers and young people going into teaching want the freedom to use the skills that they have developed to inspire young people. The Government have yet to learn that inspiration does not come from a Whitehall circular.

Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No. I have given way on several occasions and I shall not do so again.
We shall set schools free. Unfortunately, the Government and the Secretary of State cannot and will not see the need to do that. That is why they have failed to deliver. It is why we have teacher shortages, why children are being sent home early and why children are being taught by non-specialist and unqualified staff. It is why the Government will continue to fail.
We need a vision for education, and a Government with that vision. As long as we have a Labour Government who think that education is merely a tool for achieving politically set numerical targets or for meeting politically correct slogans, and as long as the Secretary of State agrees that teachers are learning managers, equipping children with "learnacy" skills, children's education will suffer.
Parents, children and teachers need a Government who value education in its own right, recognise the importance of instilling knowledge and encouraging creativity as well as teaching skills, and above all recognise the importance of inspiring children and young people to achieve. We will be that Government. We will set schools free, let heads manage and let teachers teach. We will raise standards in the classroom. Our children cannot afford another four years of Labour.

Ms Bridget Prentice: After that strange rant about what goes on in our schools, I want to move on, but I have a comment about the speech of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). When I visit schools in my constituency, I find that teachers and head teachers do not want every penny of spending devolved to them. They appreciate much of what the local education authority does for them and want it to continue to have a role.
I welcome yet another triumph of economic mastery by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I welcome also the money that will be given directly to schools. The move has been welcomed by schools in Lewisham in the past, and it will be welcomed again. However, I hope that the money will be used not only for the bread-and-butter issues of the day but more imaginatively to expand pupils' aspirations through creative projects that will further develop and enhance their future life styles beyond the classroom and after their lives in school.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement about funding to increase the number of teachers. As he knows, teacher numbers have been a problem in Lewisham, and continue to be. We have a peculiar problem that stems from the inadequacies of the Conservative Government, both in 1989 and 1993, when they did not deal properly with the recruitment and retention of staff in schools.
I shall take an overall view of the Budget. Anthony Crosland, writing in the 1950s at a time of growing prosperity, talked about
the declining importance of economic problems
and the need for a greater emphasis on personal freedom, choice, happiness and culture in future. Commenting on the values of those pioneers of the Labour movement, the Webbs, he wrote:
Total abstinence and a good filing system are not now the right signposts to a socialist Utopia; or at least, if they are, some of us will fall by the wayside.
Almost half a century later, we are again living through a period of growing prosperity. I hope that Tony—Crosland, that is—may yet be proved right. We have in our Chancellor of the Exchequer a true stakhanovite—a man who wears more hair shirts than anyone since Thomas More. We have a Chancellor who has given us economic stability and whose values are work and thrift.


In the Budget, he is continuing to make work pay and to make savings pay out more. People will benefit from the Budget if they contribute to the economic prosperity through work.
I do not deny that there are traditional battles that still need to be fought and won. It is an indictment of 18 years of Conservative rule that when we came to power, one in three children were living in poverty. There was hopelessness and despair in some of our inner-city housing estates, including those in my Lewisham constituency. We inherited a Britain in which our NHS, schools and other public services had been run down to the brink of disaster. That is changing, sometimes frustratingly slowly, but the comprehensive spending review and the Budget measures are together building us a better Britain.
We must aspire to do more. Although we are acting to end child poverty—more than 1 million children will be taken out of poverty thanks to the Labour Government's policies—to eliminate sink estates and to provide an education system and an NHS that are second to none, we should not lose sight of the fact that, for many people, the important issues of the future are more leisure time, happiness, the arts, architecture and the environment.
Of course Budgets are important. They can have a real impact on the economy. Over the years, Budgets have become major spectator events, closely watched and extensively commented on by the media. However, for those doing nicely or who are quite well-off—in other words, large swathes of middle England—the Budget is only a sideshow. More important to them are the preservation of the green belt, the quality of local restaurants and the performance of their favourite football team, and rightly so.
Budgets need to strike a balance between helping those in need and rewarding those who contribute to making society a better place. They should expand people's aspirations and creativity and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, liberate the talents of individuals. That is why the changes in funding for churches and renovation have been particularly welcome in my constituency. Only yesterday, I visited St. Margaret's church in Lee to celebrate in choral evensong the magnificent renovations there. During the evening, many of my constituents commented on and welcomed that aspect of the Budget.
Budgets should expand horizons. People in Lewisham, like those elsewhere, want to be able to use their leisure time purposefully. They want their environment to be both preserved and protected. They are concerned about the built environment. They want to ensure that proper respect is given to our heritage, preserving all that is good from the past while also being interested in developing new ideas and constructs for the future. Budgets should aim to create an environment that allows for creative expression in the arts or sport. That is why the changes for museums in the Budget are so important.
The Government are committed to social inclusion. That involves not only work to alleviate poverty, raise standards in schools and reduce crime, all of which collectively improve the well-being of our citizens, but giving them the opportunity to enjoy the arts as both spectators and producers. As we create more wealth, we

need to create an environment where more people can enjoy that wealth. Thanks to the Chancellor's successful economic management over the past four years, we can do that. As a modern democratic socialist, I believe that economic policy must be about helping those at the bottom of the pile and creating a good-time society. For that reason, I very much welcome the Budget.

Mr. John Major: "Education, education, education" was originally a cry from Lenin, who did not mean it. I suspect that the Secretary of State, who has just left, does mean it. He is sincere and, in his unavoidable absence, I should like to congratulate him on graciously adopting some of the: proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who is shadow Secretary of State. That behaviour is as welcome as it is unusual, and I hole that future Governments of both complexions will be inclined to follow that particularly good example.
Turning to the Budget as a whole, I am pleased that the Chancellor has cut taxes and given back to taxpayers a small proportion of the money that he has extracted from them in the past four years. His generosity is not surprising: notwithstanding the problems of foot and mouth, a general election is pending and the public accounts show ample scope for tax reductions and, perhaps, modest expenditure increases. Yet, only a few weeks ago, when the Opposition said that, they were condemned as "irresponsible" by spokesmen from the Treasury and elsewhere. We now see how shallow those attacks were, for if the Opposition were irresponsible, why has the most prudent of Chancellors done what they recommended? In truth, my right hon. and hon. Friends were right to identify the scope for tax reduction. Not only were they right but, if the economy stays on course, there may be scope for even more tax cuts in future.
A principal reason for that remarkable leeway is the sheer size of tax increases over the past four years. We must disentangle fact from fiction. Prior to the Budget, there had been 26 increases in personal taxation and 19 increases in taxes on business in this Parliament. That number has risen slightly although, given the Chancellor's remarkable gift for sleight of hand, one must study the small print carefully to find out precisely how many tax increases there are. However, their sum total is enormous. The abolition of tax credits on dividends alone will cost shareholders about £6 billion in the current tax year. The reorganisation of advance corporation tax at the beginning of this Parliament has affected the quality of pension funds for millions of elderly people and cost those funds more than £5 billion during the course of this Parliament; it will do continuing damage until it is changed.
Even after offsetting tax reductions—of which there have been some, mostly minor, examples—the Inland Revenue's overall tax yield has risen by an astonishing one third during this Parliament. No wonder the savings ratio has fallen so badly. That is not a wicked Tory calculation; an independent survey shows the average family to be worse off than it was in 1996. The old tax-until-the pips-squeak bruiser Lord Healey must be salivating enviously at the extent of the tax rises forced through by the Chancellor.
More people have been dragged into tax. An extra 2 million now pay tax; 28 million pay it, compared with 26 million three years ago.

Mr. Mackinlay: That is just nonsense. What about unemployment?

Mr. Major: If it is nonsense, it is Red Book nonsense. Those figures come from the Red Book. Before the hon. Gentleman mutters into his non-existent beard, he should read the Red Book and check. It is possible that the Chancellor has given us more duff facts; we are used to that. However, if they are duff, that is his responsibility, not mine.
There are 2 million more taxpayers and 700,000 more higher-rate taxpayers than there were four years ago. In addition, mortgage interest relief at source has been scrapped, although I do not object to that particularly. However, not only has MIRAS been scrapped, but stamp duty on home purchase has been increased and national insurance contributions for middle-income earners have risen sharply. So much—on the eve of the next general election—for the promises that the Labour party made to middle England and middle-income groups throughout the United Kingdom on the eve of the last one. Those groups may also care to note that the yield from inheritance tax has soared 50 per cent. during this Parliament. The Chancellor still has no concept—I genuinely believe that he does not understand its value--of letting more of the fruits of a lifetime of work filter down to the people whom the earner most cares about: his own family and the next generation.
It is no wonder, with such tax increases, that the ratio of tax to gross domestic product has risen 2.5 per cent. to 37.7 per cent. The Chancellor, despite all his promises, has not so much wooed middle England as assaulted it.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that, taking tax and borrowing together as a share of GDP—given that borrowing is deferred taxation—the figure went down two points from 38.2 per cent. in 1996–97 to 36.2 per cent. in 1999–2000, and down to 34.1 per cent. in the current year? The current figure is due to the spectrum auction of mobile phone wavelengths, but for the previous period, those two points represent the equivalent of an increase of 7.3p in income tax. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman simply borrowed instead of taxing, and tried to fiddle the figures.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that his Chancellor changed the way in which the figures are quoted in the Red Book, and the actual equivalent of what he has done is an extra 10p on tax The hon. Gentleman may care to examine that matter. [Interruption.] If it is nonsense, it is the Government's nonsense in the Government's own figures. Those are the figures that I am using. I am glad to hear from Labour Members that they do not believe them.
It is ironic that the Government and the Chancellor have increased taxes so much. During the last Parliament, I remember vividly the present Chancellor and his colleagues, ever ready to find a catchy slogan, repeating the slander of 22 Tory tax rises, with no acknowledgment whatever of any offsetting tax reductions. To call their attacks disingenuous would be kind. They were patently

untrue, and a forerunner of the manipulation of facts that has characterised so much—not all, but so much—of what the Government have said and done in the past four years.
The Government cannot deny that, because the figures for tax increases are now clear. The statistics cast light where the slogans cast deception. Before this Budget, the real increase in taxes over this Parliament was about 4.5 per cent. a year. Obviously, that figure is now a tiny bit lower, but not all that much. That compares with 1.8 per cent. between 1979 and 1997. I am indebted to the Institute for Fiscal Studies for pointing out that there were tax rises of 2 per cent. a year between 1979 and 1990, and of 1.3 per cent. between 1990 and 1997.
So much for the 22 Tory tax rises, or, indeed, the unsustainable proposition—unsustainable except by malice—that the previous Government wrecked the Tory tradition of low taxation. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who rather timidly accepted that fiction in the early part of this Parliament can now feel comforted that it was not true and refute it. They need not concede, but may safely move on and reassert our traditional tax credentials. Taxes were not unduly increased, despite the pressures of a recession that began in the 1980s and cast its shadow into the 1990s—although not, from the point of view of the health of the economy, much beyond 1992.
The Chancellor is ever ready to gloss over the excellent parts of his inheritance. He cherry-picks the bits on which he can make party political capital, and I do not blame him for that: most politicians do. However, he misses other bits. He is, after all, a very political Chancellor who wishes to be Prime Minister, and he is doing a bit of image building.
We need more facts and less of the fiction that we so often hear. The economy has been growing steadily since 1992, before—some hon. Members may not wish to hear this next point—sterling left the exchange rate mechanism. Unemployment has also been falling since that economic recovery began, and the very welcome job growth across the country—in both the number and the variety of jobs—has been consistent throughout the previous Parliament and this one.
Inflation, too, began to decline in the early 1990s and has remained low. It looks set to fluctuate only within historically narrow parameters.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Chancellor has been skilled, but I put that in perspective. Other factors have contributed, such as the ebb and flow of the economy, and I accept, to an extent, that employment growth was under way during the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship. I have intervened only because of his breathtaking assertion that people are somehow worse off than in 1996, which defies both belief and the litmus test of what one sees and feels. There was extensive unemployment, particularly among poor and unskilled people, during the period to which he refers, and although I do not apportion credit or blame in respect of employment, people are now in jobs. Demonstrably, they are better off.

Mr. Major: Demonstrably, the people in jobs are better off. That is undeniably so, but I was referring to the scale of tax increases. If the hon. Gentleman reads some of the independent research, he will see precisely why I made that comment.
As it happens, I was about to give credit to the Chancellor. The economy is in good shape and he can take a great deal of satisfaction from that. I shall not be mealy-mouthed: he can take a good bit of credit for it as well. Were he to be similarly candid, he too would offer credit to his predecessors, because he has built on what they did and on a trend that was established five years before he went to the Exchequer.
For example, some hon. Members, but perhaps not all, believe that an economic miracle began on 2 May 1997. Let us take a date at random—1 May 1997. Growth was set to be 3.5 per cent. for the next year. Inflation was 2.6 per cent. and stable. Unemployment was falling rapidly and, although still high, was down to just over 1.5 million. The fiscal deficit was falling sharply—a point that the Chancellor invariably overlooks because it embarrasses his campaign to discredit his predecessors. The trend of a falling fiscal deficit was clear, and it was falling sharply. The right hon. Gentleman can take credit for not wrecking the trend, but he cannot take credit for beginning it, for it preceded him by four years.
I thoroughly welcome the fact that economic management has reached a maturity whereby the two major parties do not feel it necessary to reverse all the actions of their predecessor. That is beneficial to the British economy, and it will remain so for as long as that is the case. I may be wrong, but I think that the Chancellor took that too far in his first two years by adopting the previous Government's expenditure plans in toto. I can tell the House, and I hope that it is not a great shock, that we certainly would not have done that. We would have increased them in the two public expenditure rounds that followed, as we had in every public expenditure round since 1979.
Stakhanovite is one word; masochistic is another, which might perhaps describe more plainly the Chancellor's disposition. He has been an economic masochist over public spending. We hear a huge amount about public spending, and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was at it as well this afternoon, but despite the hype about the unprecedented sums for health and education, the fact is that the Chancellor has raised taxes by far more than he has increased expenditure. The public have not noticed because one skill that the right hon. Gentleman has perfected is that of counting, and that includes the capacity to double count, overcount and miscount, which he has done repeatedly.
Again, I am indebted to the Institute for Fiscal Studies: total Government spending in this Parliament has risen at 1.2 per cent. a year in real terms. That is not only less than tax increases, but less than economic growth. It compares with public spending of 2.6 per cent. in the previous Parliament, which is a point that Liberal spokesmen have often made, although they are not often nice about the Conservative party. I am glad to see a nod of agreement, rather than a shake of the head, from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), because that is undoubtedly the case.
I concede that much of that expenditure was not discretionary: it resulted from the unavoidable impact of the recession. However, it puts in a better context that hoary old myth about Tory cuts, which the Prime Minister

is trying to recycle with his current spate of posters about potential future Tory cuts. Either he is ill-informed or scaremongering—probthly the latter.
The Government's publicity on cuts is familiar: it is an echo from the past. It was an odd experience in the last Parliament to be taunted by the Labour party over so-called cuts while hostile monetarists attacked us for spending far too much money.

Mr. Willis: Nothing has changed.

Mr. Major: The lion. Gentleman may be right.
The health of the economy in 1997 and subsequently suggests that we may have got that balance about right.
During this Parliament, the Chancellor has benefited from the supply side reforms of the 1980s and the disinflation brought about by the policies of the 1990s. When he chants his mantra of boom and bust—I lost count of the number of times that he and the Prime Minister uttered such drivel last week—he should remember that the last unsustainable boom was well over a decade ago. That h is not stopped the Prime Minister depicting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor as Mr. Boom and Mr. Bust. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary to the Treasury sniggers, but that is the politics of sneer and jeer. Neither of my right hon. Friends were policy makers at the time of the last boom, and one of them had barely been in the House of Commons.
There is a boom and bust today: a boom in tax raising and a bust in the competitiveness of manufacturing industry. Perhaps the Chancellor and the Prime Minister should concentrate on that boom and bust.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: I shall make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a redistributive Chancellor. He tries to hide that fact, but it is evident, and from his perspective he should not hide it. He aims to redistribute to the less well-off, but in general he redistributes to the Inland Revenue. Even his well-intentioned schemes are not wholly successful. I do not disagree with all of them. Bits of what the Chancellor has done have been good social justice, and if I had been in government with the economy that he now has, I would certainly have taken some of the measures that he has taken, and I am not remotely shy about saying so. However, some of those schemes have not been successful.
The Chancellor abolished the married couples allowance last year, and this year—after a helpful 12-month gap for the Treasury and the Inland Revenue—he has introduced a children's tax credit to replace it. However, many people will not receive that credit, because it is means-tested and millions will lose either some or all of it on the means-tested taper.
The organisation of that tax credit is a shambles. As it is based on the highest-earning member of the household, it throws up huge and unacceptable anomalies. If one parent works and earns £42,000 a year, no payment of the


child tax credit is made, whereas if both parents are at work, with no one at home with the child, and earn £35,000 each, the full credit is payable. As a means of social justice, attacking poverty and helping low-income families with children, this scheme is nonsense on stilts. If the Chancellor were serious, he would have examined those problems and sought to correct them before introducing the tax credit in its present form.
The minimum income guarantee is the Chancellor's safety net against poverty, but it is so complex that more than one third of eligible pensioner s do not claim it. The form is so complex and absurd that a large percentage of graduates might not claim it.
The 10p band extension is right in principle. I do not disapprove of minimising tax on lower income groups. However, the proposal is so niggardly and mean as to be almost pointless. The maximum gain from the Chancellor's measures in the Budget is 75p a week—that figure should strike a chord with Labour Members. Given pensioners' response to that amount previously, surely he should have done it differently.
Many of the main effects of all economic management, by every Chancellor of the Exchequer, become apparent some years after the announcement of the original tax and spending decisions. This Chancellor was lucky. He was lucky in his predecessors—lucky, notably, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lamont made the painful and unpopular decisions that contributed so much to the subsequent benign situation of which the present Chancellor has made such use in this Parliament. And—unless my memory is failing—I seem to recall that they made those decisions in the teeth of unrelenting opposition, not least from the present Chancellor and the Prime Minister.
I will not be in the House to see the Chancellor's legacy at first hand, but much of it is now predetermined. He inherited an economy of falling unemployment and low inflation, and he has maintained it. That was well done; but under his stewardship also, taxes have risen too much. The tax system has become far more complex. Manufacturing industry has declined further. Regulations have soared. Increases in business taxes are undermining competitiveness, and so in due course will the social charter, whose economic folly is not yet fully apparent but will become so.
It is, in truth, a mixed record—some good, some bad—for this luckiest and most fortunate of modern Chancellors of the Exchequer.
I cannot be certain, but this may well be the last occasion on which I shall speak in the House. Let me say that it has been a privilege beyond measure to be here, in this mother of Parliaments. I hope that the next generation of hon. Members, whichever of our peat parties they may represent, will feel as I did when I first came to the House; I hope that they will feel that way in future, and I hope that we shall be able to end the miserable political climate of spin and counterspin that has grown up in recent years.
We need to separate fact from fiction, substance from soundbite, information from innuendo. The public—the electorate—the people who sent us here—deserve more than to be spoon-fed a cocktail of headline-grabbing feel-good stories. They deserve the truth, unvarnished sometimes, but the truth, and every Member of this House, whether Minister or Back Bencher, has the obligation—the duty—to provide it.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I hope that that was not the last speech that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) will make in the Chamber. We can agree with some of what he says from time to time and disagree with other things he says, but we must all recognise that he has made interesting contributions to the House over the years—and, indeed, ended up being Prime Minister as a result. I hope that we shall hear from him one last time: he may say things that Labour Members do not like sometimes, but that is the nature of politics and the nature of debate.
I welcome some of the initiatives announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I appreciate the £8.5 billion capital investment in education, as I am sure will many local authorities, and the capital investment in the new transfer of information scheme from primary to secondary schools. If that will reduce the amount of paperwork, it must be worth while. As I said earlier, some of us—sadly—remember the years when the present Opposition were in government. They may talk of red tape, but I remember teachers showing me cupboards full of paperwork that they were expected to go through. It is not all Labour's fault; there is much for which to blame the other side. The Opposition talk of freedom, and money going directly to schools. Who introduced local management of schools—again, the forerunner of bureaucracy?
Opposition Members talk about teachers being demoralised, but who was it who took away teachers' bargaining rights? I seem to remember that it was Conservative Members—although they seem to have changed coats now. I also remember, some years ago, a Conservative Secretary of State receiving a very rough ride at a teachers' conference. Although I agree with Opposition Members that there are some cases of low teacher morale—no one would deny that—the Government are making various attempts to raise it.
I welcome some of today's announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, as they should help to lift teachers' morale. Training bursaries must be welcomed, because anything that encourages more people to enter the teaching profession must be good. I also welcome the increase in teacher training places to 2,250 as part of the direct funding package for education, which should commence in June. It is a good development which should also help to lift teachers' morale.
In many ways, the teaching profession was devalued by some of the measures implemented by the previous Administration in their 18 years in office. It is therefore perhaps not difficult to see why it is so difficult to persuade the profession to trust the current Government's efforts to help it.
Opposition Members have mentioned the Government's schemes to retrain young people and to get them into work. I remember three or four of the previous Government's youth schemes, some of which only served to disillusion young people. Indeed, those schemes may be part of the reason why we have a lost generation of young people. Regardless of what caused that disillusionment, it is indisputable that, because of this Government's action, 270,000 young people now have prospects that they never had before and 1.1 million adults have been able to take up full-time employment.
Such progress was never made under the previous Government. I remember when, under that Administration, there were between 3 million and 4 million unemployed. That is quite a contrast with the current situation. Conservative Members accuse others of cherry-picking issues, but they, too, address them selectively. They take credit for the improvements, but blame everything else on the Government.
A few weeks ago, I raised the general issue of education standard spending assessments. Often when Governments of whatever complexion say that they are providing money in the SSA, it turns out that that money is not available. I am not accusing my colleagues of doing that, but simply telling them that that means of funding is well worth examining. The sooner we do that, the better.
Reorganisations—school amalgamations and closures—are under way both in my constituency and in other parts of Coventry. I am not so sure that the way in which we are dealing with those reorganisations is always right. A consultation exercise is being conducted and the public are essentially being told that alternative proposals will be considered. However, it is not always appreciated that the public may need assistance in developing and proposing such alternatives. Some members of the public have never before dealt with public authorities such as big education departments, which have great resources, or tried to persuade them to change policy. Although drastically declining school rolls sometimes require the amalgamation or closure of schools, I believe that that policy, and SSA funding, should be revisited.
Other matters, such as further education, were not dealt with in the Budget, but we cannot have an education debate without considering them. The Government have made some progress on further education, but it is still sometimes treated like a Cinderella eduction sector, squeezed between secondary and higher education. I ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to think about that. Very often, people who have not had the benefit of a university education find their niche in further education. I see the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), nodding his head.
I hope that in the next Parliament the Government will not be in favour of top-up fees. Universities are looking for a variety of means by which to raise resources. Only a couple of weeks ago, one of the universities in my constituency tried to introduce a system whereby students who did not have laptop computers would find it difficult to get into that university. I hope that the Secretary of State is looking out for such schemes and gimmicks.
We cannot have disparity between north and south of the border, and it is about time that we looked at the Cubie report.
The long-term care of elderly people will not go away and I hope that Ministers will consider it after the election, if not before.
It has been said that our manufacturing base has been threatened. We have a well-known problem with Rolls-Royce in Coventry. People have heard me ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to look at that, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has agreed to do so. An important lesson has come out of discussions with Rolls-Royce.
The decisions that resulted in the lack of money invested in research and development were made in about 1992, and earlier. I remember saying on many occasions that the money saved by people losing their jobs should be used for research and development. A colleague of mine, a prominent shop steward, once told a Minister, "You're going to have some expensive shelf-stackers at Sainsbury's." That gives an idea of what people feel about a lack of research and development and the consequences that that can have in Coventry, particularly for companies like Rolls-Royce.
We welcome the increases for pensioners. Whatever the merits or demerits of the link to earnings, we have to convince pensioners about our policy. I readily acknowledge that Ministers have some valid reasons for not going down the road to re-establish the earnings link. For example, the £200 winter fuel allowance would be taxed. Nevertheless, at many of the meetings that I attend, pensioner constituents voice a lot of concerns about their incomes and it would be remiss of me not to repeat them. I hope that the Government will take note of that.
Low interest rates mean that the economy expands, and that assists manufacturing industry, certainly in the midlands. That has to be welcomed. Interest rates are probably the lowest they have been for about 35 years, and low inflation—the lowest for about 30 years—plays a significant part in the economy. Short-term interest rates from 1997 have averaged about 6 per cent., while longer term interest rates should average about 5 per cent.
People will remember the problems of negative equity. Mortgage interest rates have dropped—they have stabilised, from an average of 11 per cent. between 1979 to 1997 to about 6 per cent. at present. That gives comfort to small businesses, and to anyone buying a house, particularly young people. Low mortgage interest rates allow young people to plan ahead, which most of them want to do.
Manufacturing has started to rise—to about 1.6 per cent. That must be vitally important to the economy—especially in the west midlands. Productivity has been a subject for debate for 35 years or longer—certainly, during all my time in public life and in industry. It has grown by 4.4 per cent. That has got to be good, when we consider the years when it did not grow. I am sure that most people welcome that growth. We can all remember the days of boom and bust when exports were down and imports were up, creating balance of payments problems. Exports have risen by about 7.4 per cent. That has to be welcome—as is this year's surplus of £23 billion.
One of the things that the Conservatives lectured previous Labour Governments about was borrowing. The debt repayment is about £34 billion, so that is surely welcome.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman talks of the importance of debt reduction, although he does so very much at national rather than local level. If the issue is of importance to him—it is right that it should be—will he tell the House what assessment he has made of the impact on the size of interest repayments on local authority debt of the change in the rules on the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses?

Mr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman should not throw that red herring into the debate. The issue of capital


receipts was always mixed, depending on which local authority one spoke to. It was a Conservative Government who told local authorities that they could keep all their capital receipts only to start to plunder them. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework.
Lower unemployment means lower social security costs. In the past, the Opposition have criticised social security; they talk about cutting the budget and introducing swingeing measures that would make it almost impossible for people to claim social security. In fact, the cost of social security under my right hon. Friends, is down by about £4 billion—that must be welcome. In effect, it means that in order to achieve our other targets we do not have to make it more and more difficult for people who need social security to claim it.
During the period from 1979 to 1997, 42p in every pound was being used to pay off debt. That is down to about 16p at present. All in all, we must congratulate my right hon. Friends—especially on the reductions in corporation tax and capital gains tax and, more important, the assistance to be given, through reduced VAT, to small businesses with turnover of up to £54,000, and £100,000 for larger businesses. Those reductions should certainly be helpful.
Inner-city regeneration has caused much consternation and debate over the years. Under previous Governments, improvement grants were available, but people in inner-cities would now find it extremely difficult to obtain them because the Conservative Government cut them. I welcome the new initiatives to reduce VAT, to encourage inner-city regeneration—whether of property or by setting up small businesses.
Once again, I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on an imaginative Budget, which gives something to everybody. I hope that they have noted the concerns that I highlighted and that, at some point in the future, they will revisit them.

Mr. Phil Willis: It was a pleasure to be in the House to listen to the speech of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). It was a pleasure to listen to a speech that was part of the debate, that entered into it and offered information and informed opinion. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was in stark contrast to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition—especially the speech about "a foreign land" that he made in Harrogate two weeks ago. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon did not give the House that impression today. It was delightful to hear the right hon. Gentleman forgive his former friend, Lord Lamont—although I suspect that Lord Lamont has never forgiven me for defeating him at the general election.
I want to quote a wonderful remark made by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon—he may intervene if I do not get it right. In 1997, when the right hon. Gentleman was asked to comment on the Labour Government's policy of "education, education, education", he replied that he thought it was a good policy but that he would have put it in a different order. That brings me to a critical comment on the right hon. Gentleman's Government.
Although I would not challenge the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge and understanding of economics, I would certainly challenge the fact that successive

Conservative Governments, one of which he presided over as Prime Minister, left 7 million adults functionally illiterate and only one in four adults functionally numerate. That legacy was unacceptable, and it behoves all of us, irrespective of political party, to address that huge deficit and to ensure that future generations do not face the world without the basic skills that they need to operate successfully.
I, too, welcome this debate and echo the comments made at the beginning of the Budget debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who said:
the mark of a society is what sense of opportunity it gives its youngsters and how much security it offers the most elderly and vulnerable."—[0fficial Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 318.]
The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), who is no longer in her place, hit the nail on the head. The one thing that I took from the Budget, and the one thing that the House should praise, was the concentration on removing child poverty. Without ending child poverty and ensuring that fewer of our young people begin life and spend their early years in poverty, much of the rest of what we do is reactive rather than proactive; it is a sticking plaster.
In terms of my right hon. Friend's comments on 7 March, two main issues were not dealt with in the Budget, and they have been addressed by Labour Members during the debate. First, there was nothing in the Budget on the care of the elderly. That was a huge omission; it is one of the most pressing issues that we face. It is not simply a pensions issue—clearly, we have had many debates about pensions—but one of how we care for our elderly. The way in which the long-term residential care needs of our population are looked after distinguishes a caring from an uncaring Government, an idea to which the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) alluded in his speech.
There was nothing in the Budget to support local authority social service departments, which are desperately struggling with the costs of residential and nursing-care placements. It was rather sad that there was nothing to support the cross-over between health authorities, health care trusts and social services in trying to meet those needs. The Chancellor, who had the resources available, could more wisely have used his money in that way.

Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman may want to consider the fact that Library figures show that, in the first two years of this Government, the Chancellor reduced personal social services expenditure to the detriment of the very vulnerable groups that he describes.

Mr. Willis: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments, but he must accept that, certainly in each of the five years before the new Labour Government's election on 1 May 1997, the resources given to local authorities for social care use were reduced, year on year; and that, more perversely, capping arrangements meant that council tax rises could not compensate for those reductions, so I would say, "A plague on both your houses!"
This debate is primarily on education, so I shall return to education as soon as possible. It was rather sad that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) spent virtually


all her contribution offering a diatribe without ideas, regurgitating the same old accusations, mostly on behalf of The Guardian and Nick Davies, about the Government's spending plans.
The hon. Lady and the Tory party offer one specific response to our schools' needs—free schools. The response that she gave to my question about funding was appropriate, because it goes to the heart of the debate on the Tories' proposals for free schools. They seem to be suggesting that every school will be funded centrally, so I asked whether every child would receive the same level of funding. Interestingly, the answer was no. There would have to be a formula to distribute resources and that is one of the issues that has bedevilled Governments in their attempts to provide equitable resources to individual schools.
I have often discussed the issue with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). The tragedy of the Tories' proposal becomes clear when one considers which of the services that are currently offered by local authorities to schools would have to be offered by the schools themselves as part of the package. The costs for special educational needs for schools in an inclusive education system can be horrendous if they are not largely picked up by the central administration. The idea that each school would have to meet the requirement does not bear the critical examination that such a policy should receive. The idea that head teachers want to be responsible for school transport and want to organise buses and taxis is beyond belief. Again, the suggestion that the service could be provided more cheaply if it were run by each individual school rather than by a local authority does not bear critical examination.
One of the key suggestions that the hon. Member for Maidenhead constantly makes to head teachers relates to disruptive pupils. Under a Tory Government—God forbid—schools would be able to kick such pupils out, but where would they go and how much would it cost to look after them? All the evidence shows that it costs at least five times more to educate a pupil in a pupil exclusion unit than it does in school. Where would that money come from, and what would happen if the number of units were expanded? My authority does not have such a unit. It would have to build one, and that would have to be resourced centrally.
In my role as education spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, for the past two years I have had spats with the Secretary of State and accused him of all sorts of things. However, I would never accuse him of not being interested in, or committed to, education. From the age of four, I have spent my whole life involved with various Secretaries of State in one guise or another. In 1944, my father was presumed killed in the war and that was the year I attended my first nursery school. Since then, I have been involved, in one way or another, with every Secretary of State. Perhaps Butler to Blunkett does not sound as good as Huxley's cradle to the grave, but the Secretary of State will be right to be proud of many achievements if he leaves the Department for Education and Employment and goes to the Home Office.
Sadly, however, the Secretary of State's legacy will not be as good as it should have been. In 1997, the whole education world welcomed a change and expected that things would be different. I was a head teacher in 1997

and I know that schools were demoralised then. The whole education system was demoralised and underfunded and there was a 20-year backlog of repairs to school buildings. The situation was dire. So it is rather sad that the Government have abandoned the proud ambitions with which they came into office. They have squandered them on spin, triple accounting and knee-jerk reactions. Above all, the Government have put their faith in the likes of the former chief inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead, who betrayed not only the Secretary of State, but the education system.
The Budget was announced as we look forward to a general election and I support much of what the Chancellor said last week. I welcome the fact that much additional money will go to head teachers to spend on books and equipment. When I was a head teacher, I would have welcomed greater flexibility in the spending of part of my resources, and I am sure that most heads welcome the proposal.
However, the Government should not be able to claim that a huge sum of extra money was announced in last week's Budget. The £1 billion was an underspend from previous years. It was not new money, but money that had been regurgitated. If we take account of the Barnett formula and subtract the money for Scotland, we are talking about £800 million over three years, of which £200 million will go towards earmarked recruitment and retention packages. The money for each school will thus be about £10,000 to £11,000 a year, and a school's future cannot be planned on the basis of such funding. That is the huge mistake that the Government continually make. Year after year, they drip-feed money into our schools and they attract major headlines, but they do not attack the root cause of the major underfunding in the resource budgets of all our schools.
Let me give some examples. A head teacher in the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames has written to the chairman of the Conservative-led council. Kingston is reducing school budgets, because it is anticipating the money that the Chancellor will give directly to schools. Exactly the same thing, is happening in North Yorkshire—again a Conservative-controlled authority—which is top-slicing its school budgets by £2 million. Although Harrogate grammar school—which, by the way, is a top-class comprehensive school—will receive an extra £12,000 from the Budget settlement, it will lose £40,000 because of the reduction in funding from the county council. I recall what the hon. Member for Coventry, South said, and point to the nonsense of the current funding arrangements and to their lack of transparency.

Mr. Hayes: I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my concern that the problem with the drip-feed approach that he describes is that, although it may attract headlines, it is unrelated to need. It is a crude instrument. He criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) because she said that the formula would have to take account of need, but surely he would acknowledge that the Government's approach of handing out money in lump sums does not address the core issue of need.

Mr. Willis: I think that I have already said that. I have never met an hon. Member who supports the current system. I asked for an explanation of the current standard spending assessment system and, because I knew that it would be a leisurely debate, I have the answer with me.


I shall describe to the House how primary schools get their money. Under the fairer funding scheme, the Government's SSA for primary pupils for 1999–2000 contains the following formula:
(a) Pupils aged 5-10 multiplied by the result of: £1,722.06; plus £206.93 multiplied by Additional Needs index; plus £94.75 multiplied by Ward sparsity index; plus £200.94 multiplied by free school meals;
(b) The result of (a) is multiplied by the Area Cost Adjustment for education;
(c) The result of (b) is then multiplied by a scaling factor (1.00000461765064).
It is plainly nonsense to have such a lack of transparency in our funding system, and the Government promised to change it.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: First, it ill behoves the Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman to talk about SSAs when no one manipulated them more than the Conservative Government. Secondly, every year they were in government we had the hardy annual of finding out whether an area would retain its cost adjustment. We cannot know where we stand when we relate cost adjustments to SSAs.

Mr. Willis: Again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, while the Labour party was still in opposition, it promised that the system would be made fair and transparent. The Secretary of State should give a commitment to that effect.
Another myth needs to be exposed. It was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon and relates to the amount that the Government are spending on education services. It is thought that such spending is increasing dramatically. However, according to Library figures, the proportion of gross domestic product that is spent on education during this Parliament will be 4.6 per cent., compared with 4.9 per cent. under the Government of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon. We can argue about GDP until the cows come home, but the Government said that they would spend a greater percentage of the country's wealth on education. That is clearly not happening.
Liberal Democrats welcome the £200 million for recruitment and retention which the Secretary of State announced. We also welcome the fact that the Government have understood that there is a problem. However, we want to dissociate ourselves from the right hon. Gentleman's disgraceful attack on dedicated professionals which appeared in the Daily Mail today. When we are in the middle of a sensitive dispute, it does no good whatever to launch a wholesale attack on the teaching unions. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), is in the Chamber and I have a challenge for the Government: rather than bandy words with trade unions about teacher shortages and, in particular, the strike action, they should immediately organise an emergency summit with trade union leaders, local authorities and the Department to set a timetable and resolve the crisis.
Last year, we established the General Teaching Council, one of whose key tasks should be to operate as a standing committee on teacher supply. I hope that I

receive a response to that idea. We have all continually warned the Government about the problem of teacher recruitment. In last year's debate on the Budget, I said:
It is surprising … that there is nothing in the Budget to assist with teacher recruitment … despite the worrying trend."—[Official Report, 23 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 1150.]
This year, we have received £200 million over three years. That is an improvement, but it is clearly not enough.
According to last week's survey by The Times Educational Supplement and the Secondary Heads Association, there are 10,000 vacancies in our secondary schools, and some 10,000 vacancies in our teacher training colleges have gone unfilled since 1997. That cannot go unchallenged. Indeed, Ministers have acted. They have introduced "golden hellos" and have tried to introduce a grant, which has become a training salary. Baroness Blackstone has said:
The Government have introduced training salaries".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 February 2001; Vol. 622, c. 861.]
Hon. Members should note the term "training salaries". Paragraph 5.17 on page 68 of the Green Paper, which was published two weeks ago, said:
We have introduced a new £6,000 training salary".
However, it is not a training salary and, if it is, it breaks all the Government's rules on salaries. A £6,000 salary works out at £3.95 an hour, based on a 40-hour week, but last week they told the House that we must have a £4.10 minimum wage from October. There is a real conflict here. Perhaps the Government will admit that the new training salary—if it is to be a salary—will have pension rights attached to it and that national insurance contributions will be paid on it. Without those, people will be disadvantaged.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead said that there was a problem with the Government's figures on applications for teacher training. I do not want to repeat those. Last week, we had a major spat with the Graduate Teacher Training Registry because it published figures a day early for the Government. It said that the Government asked for their early release so that they would not conflict with the good news in the Budget. It cannot be right that an independent organisation should leak information to the Government ahead of time, but not give it to Conservative Front Benchers, Liberal Democrat Front Benchers or anyone else. The Government so often get it wrong by attempting to manipulate information rather than giving everyone access to it.
There has been a 13 per cent. drop in secondary course applications, despite all the Government's belated actions since 1997. That is having an effect on our schools because of the related shortages. Rather than criticising the teaching unions, we should work with them to redress that balance.
Higher education was—conveniently—almost totally absent from the Budget statement and the Secretary of State's statement today. The Chancellor recognised that we need 2.5 million more employees who are educated to degree level. However, he offered nothing to ease the growing burden of student debt. There is an aversion to mentioning that problem. Indeed, the Select Committee on Education and Employment avoids recognising that debt aversion is relevant. It puts people off going into, and staying in, higher education. The Liberal Democrats are the only party to guarantee students reduced debt and the abolition of tuition fees. I was delighted to hear the hon.


Member for Coventry, South mention the Cubie report. Ultimately, we will return to that and have similar arrangements for students in this country.
Last Friday's editorial in The Times Educational
Supplement said:
The Liberal Democrats' proposals to restore means-tested grants are the most coherent solution to student poverty and are a prerequisite to expansion. Labour should steal them.
That is a good message for the Minister.

Mr. Richard Allan: My hon. Friend will know that many of my constituents are academics who work in Sheffield's two universities—the university of Sheffield, and Sheffield Hallam university. He should also be aware that many of them are writing to me to tell me how poor morale is within the higher education sector. Does he share my concern that the Government's policy is about cramming more bodies into the higher education institutions without dealing with the fundamental pay problems in higher education? The product that they provide will inevitably suffer as more industrial disputes take place and other problems of morale arise.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. Expansion is pointless without sufficient investment to ensure quality. After the Robbins report in 1963, the sector expanded year after year, but in the 1990s, under the previous Government, there was a year-on-year reduction in real terms in the amount available for each student in higher education. The sad fact is that every year since 1997 there has been a reduction per student in the amount of money for their education.
The Prime Minister recently announced that his ambition was to have 50 per cent. of young people going into higher education. That is meaningless unless we are told where all those people are to come from. At the moment, the demand simply does not exist. Last year, 53 higher education institutions were unable to fill their student places. There were 40,000 unfilled places in our universities. The Government are planning unbridled expansion simply to grab headlines.
I agree with the earlier comments about further education. There was not a word about that sector in the Chancellor's statement. It is as if the Learning and Skills Council has wiped away all further education worries and resolved all the problems. There is a massive problem of recruitment and retention in FE, just as there is in our schools. There is a huge issue surrounding pay, just as there is in higher education, as the Bett committee reported. An even bigger issue in FE is the professionalisation of lecturers. If we do not grapple with those problems, we will see the same sordid results as have occurred in many of our schools, such as young people being sent away and teachers being pulled in from wherever possible to fill staff places.
The Government's policy on lifelong learning began with a huge agenda and was going to revolutionise the world. Under the policy, "learning works", no child, young person or adult who was failing would be allowed to continue to do so. Sadly, the joined-up thinking has not taken place. The schools taskforce said that we

desperately needed people to have access to level 2 and 3 qualifications throughout their lives. The Chancellor says that he wants to underpin level 2 training, but that is all. There will be access to training at level 2, but not beyond, even though, apart from Mexico and Greece, we have the lowest number of people in level 3 training anywhere in the developed world. That is the challenge that the Government have not met. Hopefully, a Liberal Democrat Government will meet it in the next Parliament.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: We have heard perhaps the final contribution of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), so it is appropriate for me to say a few words in response. If we put politics to one side, most of us would accept that he is basically a decent man, but he found himself leading a political party that was unleadable. Indeed, much of his time was spent standing up to the right-wing, extreme elements that now control the modern Conservative party, so it must be difficult for him to make speeches from the Opposition Benches these days.
It was, however, curious to listen to the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the economic situation in Britain. He was clearly anxious to rewrite the legacy of his stewardship of the economy. Listening to him, one would have thought that his Governrnent had a reputation for economic competence and that he had led them to a barnstorming victory on 1 May 1997, but history records something very different. It shows that Black Wednesday was the beginning of the end of the Tories' claim to be the party of competent management, economically and more generally. That Government left the country with national debt that had doubled. They left the country extremely insecure, socially divided and very unhappy, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman led his party to the worst election defeat in living memory. That is no reflection on him as an individual or on his decency; it is a reflection on the record of the Government whom he led, and more specifically on their economic incompetence and the social division that they created.
The right hon. Gentleman made one useful contribution to the debate of which the Government should take note. In his condemnation of the use of the terms "Mr. Boom" and "Mr. Bust" to describe the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, he spoke of "sneer and jeer" politics. I am sure that Labour Members would regard "Mr. Sneer" and "Mr. Jeer" as equally appropriate descriptions of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, so I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that idea.
Labour Members would agree with much of what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, although, like every Liberal Democrat Member, he asked for more and more public spending. There is never any reckoning of how that is to be paid for, and account is never taken of the need for a stable economy and for economic prudence as the foundation of public spending.
I shall give an example of Liberal Democrat contradiction from my area. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) recently said that we cannot have high levels of public spending and low levels of taxation, and that it is important that politicians are honest about the fact that they must put up


taxes if they want to increase spending. Last week, the Liberal Democrat group on Bury council proposed an amendment to the Labour-controlled council's budget to reduce council tax. They displayed none of the honesty recommended by their national leader; they did not say that reasonable, fair taxation is necessary to pay for decent services. They made a nakedly political move to pander to an audience.
Throughout the country, Liberal Democrats at a local level are inconsistent with their national leadership. They do not merely have different policies in different towns—sometimes they have different policies in different streets. Is it not about time that they were honest with the British people about how they would pay for the increased public expenditure for which they continually ask?

Mr. Allan: Before the hon. Gentleman awards us the monopoly on complaints about local taxation, I hope that he will refer to Labour opposition groups, such as the one in Sheffield, who attack Liberal Democrat-controlled councils for their council tax rises. Does he not accept that it seems to be a traditional role of the opposition in local government, whatever party they represent, to attack the ruling group for its council tax rise? Will he pay attention to the proposals published in the Liberal Democrats' alternative Budget, which clearly point out where additional funding at a national level would come from?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman's party says that it is different; that is the whole point of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West. He tries to pretend that the Liberal Democrats are somehow separate from politicians in other parties, and that they are more honest, straighter and tell the truth. Yet in Bury, the Liberal Democrats did exactly what their national leader tells us is unacceptable and misleading—they called for a council tax reduction purely to pander to local opinion at the time and without any regard for the consequences for local services. The Liberal Democrats cannot continue to have it all ways.
The Budget has been warmly welcomed by my constituents. It demonstrates that the Government have honoured their pre-election promises to the British people. To be specific about the fundamental pre-election promise, the Budget continued the rebuilding of the country on the foundations of economic stability and social justice. The Government have always aimed to combine encouragement of individual ambition and aspiration for families who want a decent life and to do well for themselves with a commitment to community solidarity, to public services and to the idea that we achieve far more together than we ever do alone. The Budget is responsible and it ensures that we are able significantly to invest in the people's priorities. It would never have been possible without the tough choices made by this Government early on in our Administration.
The Conservative party seeks to pretend that we have continued its economic policies and that, had it continued in government in 1997, the economy would have been as strong as it is now and the fundamentals would have been in place. I shall give three specific examples of why that is arrant nonsense and of where this Government had to make distinctive and difficult choices.
The first decision was to give responsibility for the setting of interest rates to the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. That option was available to Tory

Chancellors for many years, but they declined to take it. This Government took the decision to prioritise paying off the national debt. That is a distinctive choice, which Governments do not have to make. In fact, the Conservative party doubled national debt while in office.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lewis: I shall give way in a minute.
This Government chose to make the payment of national debt central to their economic strategy. Yes, we chose to stay within tight spending limits, but that did not mean that we did not spend considerably more in the first two years of the Parliament on health and education—we did. [HON. MEMBERS: "No you did not."] Yes we did. However, the overall Government spend stayed within previous limits. It is interesting that the Conservative party says that that is the best example of our continuing its economic policies, yet the right hon. Member for Huntingdon said that the Conservatives would not have done so had they been in government post 1997.

Mr. Brooke: I feared that the hon. Gentleman would get to a point where my intervention would be irrelevant. As he has said that the previous Government doubled the national debt, will he remind the House of the national debt in 1979 and of that in 1997? I think that he will find that it did not double during that period.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was referring specifically to the period between 1992 and 1997, when he was a leading and respected member of the Government. It is important that people who served in that Government take responsibility for their record and legacy, and do not seem to have a collective fit of amnesia.
This Government made distinctive and difficult decisions in their early days that led to today's economic stability. It is wrong to pretend that the economic strength of our country, which the right hon. Member for Huntingdon was honourable enough to acknowledge, was created by accident or chance. We, as a Government, recognise that it is also due to the enterprise of the British people and their contribution to that economic growth and success. If this Government had not laid such foundations, we would not now be able to use that economic stability to invest in our country's future.
Let us consider the outcome of those policies of economic stability and competence. One difficulty for Conservatives is that they cannot cope with the fact that the British people now see the Labour party as the party of economic competence. The Conservative party finds it difficult to stomach the fact that the British people recognise that the Labour party has travelled a tremendous distance and demonstrated—not just promised—in four years that it can be trusted to manage the economy. The outcome of the policies is clear. We have the lowest inflation for 30 years and we have low interest rates. The average family now pays £1,200 per household a year less for their mortgage than they did in 1997. That is a significant contribution to household income. The Government have created 1 million new jobs, and we have the lowest unemployment for 26 years.
We should remember that it was not so long ago that we were being told that mass unemployment was a price worth paying for low inflation. For a long period during


the reign of the Conservative party, the British people were told that they could not have low unemployment and low inflation at the same time because it was managerially impossible. In fact, I think that it was Lord Lamont who said that unemployment was a price worth paying. That was an insensitive and disgraceful comment, and this Government have demonstrated that unemployment is not a necessary price to pay for the creation of a low-inflation Britain. It is a Labour Government who have delivered low interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment.
All that does not mean that there are not job losses—of course there continue to be people who lose their jobs. In recent weeks in my constituency, I have seen the sad loss of the East Lancs paper mill, which had offered a number of very important jobs and played an integral part in the community of Radcliffe, which is an important part of my constituency. What is important now to those who have lost their jobs is an opportunity to get another one, and that there will be investment in their area and community to give them hope, so that they are not consigned to long-term unemployment.
In the 1980s and 1990s, far too many people were consigned to the scrap heap of unemployment. In some families, three generations of people were never given the opportunity of a job and of engaging positively in society and in the community in which they lived. There continue to be job losses in certain sectors, but if one maps what happens one sees that the majority of people who find themselves out of work are very quickly able to reskill, retrain and find alternative employment opportunities.
Indeed, one of this Government's great successes has been the incentivisation of work through the new deal, which gets young and long-term unemployed people off benefit and into work. There has been a cultural shift in the social security system and economic strategy. Many people used to be better off not working. Low-paid jobs were available, but people were not able to secure work that provided a decent income for themselves and their families. This Government have created an environment that incentivises work and makes it pay. That in itself constructively engages many people in the community, so that they can make a positive contribution to the economy.
It is essential that our economic and social policy is relevant to all parts of the country. That is why the establishment of the regional development agencies was so important. They look at the strengths and needs of each region and ensure that we invest according to their sensitivity, history and future needs. Of course, the Conservative party is committed to abolishing RDAs, which would be disastrous in areas such as the north-west, where we are beginning to see the coming together of a local strategy between the public and private sectors, working with central Government to lay the foundations for continued economic growth and prosperity while at the same time tackling the fundamental social exclusion that has built up over many years. To ditch regional policy and, more specifically, to abolish RDAs, as the Conservatives would if they had their way, would be a lost opportunity.
One of the most incredible facts revealed in the Budget is the statistic on national debt: in one year, this Government have paid off more debt than was paid off in the preceding 50 years added together. That is a major achievement. I say that not because it is a good soundbite

or because it sounds good politically but because I believe that we should analyse the way in which the state spends its money and how it prioritises that spend.
Under the Conservative Government, in 1997, 42p in every pound of taxpayers' money was spent on paying either unemployment benefit or debt interest repayments. Only 58p in every pound remained to be spent on front-line services such as education, health and the fight against crime. Now, only 16p in every pound is spent on debt repayment and unemployment benefit and 84p in every pound of taxpayers' money is available to be spent on services that matter to people. There has been a massive change and a fundamental shift in the management of the economy since the 1997 election.

Mr. Willis: Why have the Government not considered local authority debt, especially that of hospitals and health care trusts? The local health care trust in my constituency spends about £900,000 a year on servicing debt. Why is it only Government debt that is written down? Why is there not support for local authorities and health authorities?

Mr. Lewis: The Government's responsibility is to lay foundations at a national level and to set parameters for the way in which local agencies work and for the choices that they make. The Liberal Democrats would be the first to criticise us for over-centralisation if we decided to dictate priorities for health care trusts and other local agencies in terms of the balance between debt repayment and investment in services. We have set parameters and taken a lead but, ultimately, given the massive extra moneys that are being made available by the Government to local health care trusts and LEAs, it is for those organisations to make choices and judgments on priorities locally.
We in Bury were pleased to receive my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to open the Third Millennium building at the college of further education last week. It was a successfull visit, and my right hon. Friend was warmly received by all those who were fortunate enough to attend the opening. We are generally proud of our education system in Bury. We have excellent levels of performance. We have a family of schools working together in partnership with the LEA, which is recognised nationally; Ofsted acknowledges that it is one of the best in the country.
All those educational achievements—among the best performances in the country—must be set in the context of our having probably one of the worst levels of funding per pupil in England. That is why the public, and especially head teachers, teachers and governors, welcome the fact that the Government have produced a Green Paper on the reform of local government finance which for the first time identifies the distribution of education standard spending assessments as a difficulty and commits the Government to taking action to ensure that there is a far fairer distribution of education resources. I am told that a White Paper will follow after the election.
It is important that we tackle the issue of SSAs and have a more equitable system. Wherever a child is educated, a minimum sum should be agreed. No education authority should be expected to receive less than that sum.

Mr. Geraint Davies: I agree with what my hon. Friend says, but does he agree with me that we also need to


take into account issues such as ethnicity, multicultural education, mobility and other costs that certain urban centres face and certain rural areas do not?

Mr. Lewis: Of course I agree that those factors must be taken into account in creating a new and fairer system. The Government are not seeking to justify the funding gap that exists as between some LEAs. Indeed, they are seeking in their Green Paper to redress the balance. The factors to which my hon. Friend has referred matter, but they do not in themselves explain the gap between funding per pupil that exists as between some areas. That is why we welcome the Green Paper.
There are some political parties who say that the Government should have revamped local government finance in their first three or four years—that we should have got to grips with extremely complex and difficult problems that the Conservative Government did not tackle in 18 years. The Liberal Democrats know that, realistically, they will not have the opportunity to tackle them in the near future. We all know that local government finance is amazingly complex and that it is not easy to reform. However, the Government are committed to reform. In the Green Paper, they have specifically acknowledged the inequity of education SSAs as one of the issues that must be put right. Bury regards that as an extremely important commitment.
Those who imply that, because the SSA system has not been radically reformed, massive amounts of money have not gone into schools in places such as Bury and the other LEAs, are deceiving and misleading the public. Investment in the standards fund in Bury has risen from £27 per pupil in 1997–98 to £151 in 1999–00. We have seen £240,000 allocated to school security. Access initiatives have received £133,000. To recruit additional teachers to reduce class sizes, there has been funding of £2,082,000. Various capital projects have been allocated £1,448,000. There has been spending of £1.5 million on new classrooms to reduce class sizes, and £1.9 million has been made available for the new deal for schools. Given what was happening in the education system in the lead-up to the 1997 election, there has been a massive shift.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon accuses us of scaremongering about the threat posed to communities by Tory cuts. Our argument is based on real experience. Anyone who served on a local authority during the Tory years knew what the annual cycle meant: it meant managing cuts exercises year after year to ensure that cuts did the least damage to the most vulnerable people in our communities.
The extra money that is going into schools and other local services throughout the country is making a real difference to the quality of those services and to the quality of education available in schools. It is a pretence that there has been no difference. We remember annual cuts exercises. We remember when there was inadequate money for books and equipment. We remember when class sizes in primary schools were far too large. We remember that era.
Anyone working in education at any level would acknowledge the significant amount of extra investment that is going into schools, which is making a difference to standards, to the quality of education and the physical environment and to opportunities to learn. The assertion

that the Government are not making a difference to education is false and mislading and is not borne out by the evidence that exists in every community.
The Budget will also make a difference to schools through the teacher recruitment strategy announced today, which is backed up with resources. One subject that has not been discussed so far is the reason for the crisis that we face in recruiting people to work in the public services, part of which is the way in which the public services and public servants were devalued and run down during 18 years of Tory government. Public services were portrayed as a leech on the public purse. Young people were not encouraged to go into public services if they wanted a decent standard of living or quality of life.
The status of public services and those who worked in them was undermined and demeaned over an 18-year period, yet in four years the Government are supposed miraculously to turn that culture around. Labour is responsible, allegedly, for the fact that we have thousands too few nurses, doctors, teachers and other public service professionals. In the words of a famous tennis player, "You cannot be serious." Most of the British public accept that, it takes time to make a fundamental shift in such a complex situation.
If we have thousands too few teachers, doctors, nurses and hospital beds, what was going on during the 20 years of unbroken Conservative rule, when there were periods of great prosperity and economic opportunity for the Government of the day? Where did that dividend go? Where did our money go? It went on tax cuts for a very few at the top, and the rest of it went down black holes on Black Wednesday and on debt repayment and paying the costs of mass unemployment.
It is a bit rich for the Opposition to attack the Government for the difficulties arising from the shortage of certain public sector workers. No one out there believes that. I suspect that many Opposition Members do not believe that that is a credible position. Everyone accepts that public services had to be rebuilt from the lowest level at which they have been since the war as a result of the damage that the Conservatives did to them. That will not happen overnight. Most of the British people acknowledge that, and are fair enough to accept it and to congratulate the Government on the achievement so far, even though they want more.
It is important to mention the Government's attack on child poverty, which has a direct correlation with educational performance. It is not good enough to look in isolation at test results, exam results and the resources going into schools. It is essential that we also consider the resources going to ordinary, hard-working families to tackle the problem of poverty and people living on unacceptably low incomes. The Budget introduces the children's tax credit, which will be £520 a year for ordinary families, and £1,040 in the first year after a child's birth, in recognition of the fact that that is a particularly expensive time for families bringing up children.
There will be enhanced child care allowances, which contribute towards a stable home environment, allowing children to learn and do better educationally. There will also be long-overdue improvements to maternity pay and leave, which again contribute towards stable foundations for the average family. The increase of £5 a week in the working families tax credit will incentivise work, making it worthwhile for people to make the choice to have a job.
The Government were the first Labour Government, after many promised it, to introduce the national minimum wage. That is to be increased from £3.70 an hour to £4.10 an hour—another policy of which the Government are proud, and which the Opposition said would cost millions or hundreds of thousands of jobs. Not a bit of it. The shadow Chancellor has accepted that if the Conservative party ever returned to power, the minimum wage would have to remain. Of course, that party would allow it to wither on the vine. That is the difference in approach between the Opposition and the Government. We will ensure that it increases according to the economic conditions that prevail, so that people on low pay benefit when the economy is doing well. Although the Opposition say that they would not eliminate the national minimum wage if they ever returned to government, they would certainly have a strategy of allowing it to wither on the vine.
All the Government's support for families, for children and for people who are working hard will make a substantial difference to those people's quality of life and standard of living, and ultimately to the quality of our education system. The Conservatives' comments about the Government's spending plans as set out in the Budget imply that they would make significant cuts in public expenditure. They have accused the Chancellor of having irresponsible spending plans, and they have identified the areas in which they believe those spending plans are irresponsible. If the Tories were ever re-elected, every community throughout the country would face tangible and massive cuts to local services that matter to local people.
It is about time that the Tories were honest and told us where the cuts in local public services would fall. How many teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers and transport schemes would be lost? How many essential services would be cut, and how quickly would we return to the culture of public service cuts? The Opposition also say that they would reduce taxes. We all know who would be the beneficiaries of that policy. The Conservatives would reduce taxes for the few at the top in our society, whereas our tax proposals are directed at reducing taxes in a targeted way for those who most need it.
Opposition Members look horrified at that proposition, but it has always been the way of the Tories, throughout history, to cut the taxes of the very people who least need it, and to do nothing about the hard-working majority of people, especially those on low incomes. It is not new and should not come as a shock to the Opposition that such accusations are levelled against them. It is entirely consistent with what they are promising in their election manifesto, and even more consistent with what they did when they were in government for all those years. It is often best to judge politicians by what they did when they had power, rather than by what they say they will do.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Having listened to him drone on for 40 minutes because his Whips cannot get enough speakers to fill the time allocated for the debate, we are at least entitled to an accurate representation of the Conservative party's policies. There is no question of cutting health, education, transport or police spending. We would make a darn sight better job

of running those services than his party has done. Likewise, the tax cuts that we announced would be far more effectively targeted on those who genuinely need the help—the elderly and savers, in particular.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for yet another example of the Opposition denying reality. Whatever the debates and disputes about the state of the economy, when the Government came to power in 1997, we inherited hospitals in crisis, schools that were crumbling, public services that were in a dreadful state, and a transport infrastructure that was a disgrace to a modern economy. That was the legacy not of four, eight or 12 years of the Conservatives, but of 18 years of unbroken government, when they had the opportunity to run the country in whichever way they saw fit. That is the situation that people faced in their daily lives on 1 May 1997, which may provide a miraculous explanation of why the Conservative party had the worst election result ever in the history of a major British political party.

Mr. Willis: Until the next election.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his confident prediction.
It is important to remember that, in four years, it is impossible to put right 18 years of under-investment, social division and the running-down of public services. That view prevails among Labour Members and others and explains why we were elected in such large numbers. Many people who had previously voted Conservative transferred their loyalties to the Labour party because they saw destruction on the ground and society crumbling in their communities.
The Budget redresses the belief that there is no such thing as society and that we are simply a collection of individuals. That was not just Conservative rhetoric; the previous Government tried to run this country on the basis of that belief. They divided the country from top to bottom and, having failed to deliver high-quality public services and a cohesive society, added to that between 1992 and 1997 by messing up the economy. They were deemed to be economically incompetent and unfit to govern.
Nobody believes that the Opposition have any new solutions to the country's fundamental problem. Everybody knows that, if they came back into power, it would be more of the same—cuts in public services and tax cuts for the few at the top of society at the expense of the mainstream majority. There is nothing new about that; it has been Tory philosophy throughout the ages and from one generation to the next.
I am proud to support the Budget. Having spoken to my constituents at the weekend and read newspapers that I am not normally inclined to read, I genuinely believe that it is a Budget for hard-working families and high-quality public services. It is a good Budget for pensioners and small businesses; it is a Budget of which the Government can be genuinely proud.

Mr. John MacGregor: The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) droned on for so long, with so many travesties of the truth and the facts, making so much irrelevant comment about history—


rewriting it and spinning—that he will forgive me if I do not follow his example. Indeed, the longer he went on, the more I realised that it was not worth following him and responding to his comments.
I have spoken in many Budget and Finance Bill debates, both as a Minister and a Back Bencher, during my years in the House. There was a pause only when I was a Minister in a certain Department. This may well be my last opportunity to speak in a Budget debate before retiring from the House, so I am glad to have had the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to cover the entire ground, only some key points, as I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), not least about our strong economic legacy. I shall come back to that.
My overwhelming impression, as I listened to the Chancellor and looked at the Budget over the weekend, is that this is an itsy-bitsy Budget which, as in previous years, used the smoke and mirrors of the conjuror's art—I know something of that art—to deflect attention from what was really happening. There were little bits for everyone, but they did not add up to much. Nevertheless, the Chancellor got what he wanted: media coverage that made it look like goodies all round. I shall refer to smoke and mirrors later.
It has been widely recognised—and much commented on—that the Chancellor is apparently giving away, or, more accurately, giving back, only a small proportion of what he has accumulated during the past four years. That cannot be said too often because the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and others on the Government Front Bench tried to deny for some considerable time that there had been an increase in the overall tax burden—until, of course, the facts became irrefutable. Many studies by the House of Commons Library, accountants and others demonstrated that what the Government said was untrue. Now, the Red Book demonstrates that there has been a considerable increase in the tax burden, which, as a proportion of gross domestic product, has increased from 35.3 per cent. when the Government took office to 38 per cent. in the coming year. That is a measure of the increase in the tax burden, of which a significant proportion comes from fiscal drag.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon was right to talk about the legacy of a strong economy. When history is written, that will be seen as one of the great benefits that the Chancellor inherited. To be fair, by and large he has not gone back to the policies of past Labour Governments, which would have dissipated all the benefits of the strong legacy that came about partly through the supply side reforms undertaken by my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher in the 1980s and the many other economic reforms during that period.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: No, I have listened to the debate for a long time and I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute.
During that period, there were strong economic policies, low inflation, and falling unemployment. As those of us who have worked at the Treasury know, those trends continue and others benefit from them—which is what has happened to the Chancellor. As I said, to be fair, he has not returned to the policies of the last Labour Government.
One reason for the fiscal drag is that the Chancellor has indexed all the thresholds on direct tax, including inheritance tax and capital gains tax, and has not compensated for the substantial earnings increases and capital cumulation during those years. When I listened to the Chancellor, I was struck by an illustration of that. The starting point for the tax threshold for the 40 per cent. higher rate, taking into account the personal allowance, is about £34,000, which is only about £9,000 higher than average earnings. Someone earning £34,000 goes straight into the highest tax band, which is a big tax jump and particularly unfair for households with a single earner in the family. They start to pay higher rate tax at the comparatively low level of £34,000 and are particularly disadvantaged compared with two earners in the same family each earning £25,000. That is a similar point to that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon about the children's tax credit. That issue must be addressed. However, fiscal drag is not permanent and can soon wither—I shall return to that later.
The other reason for the big fiscal surplus is the collective stealth taxes, the bulk of which have been levied on companies and their pension funds, and also involve indirect taxes. Starting with the burden on companies and pension funds, the Chancellor has been able to give the impression that he has not increased the tax rate because the burden has been put on those who, if I may put it this way, are not ordinary voters, and on bodies where the effect of the tax increase will come much later. Some people therefore feel that because the Chancellor has not increased direct taxation, he has not increased taxes overall.
However, the disadvantageous effects of increases in stealth taxes are bound to come through, especially in relation to pension funds. In the past four years, £17 billion has been taken from pension funds and added to the Chancellor's revenue, giving him the opportunity for fiscal surplus. That £17 billion, which will continue to accumulate in coming years, will have severe effects on companies and pensioners. Speaking as the chairman of the House of Commons pension fund, I suspect that, before long, it will feel the impact; the surplus will disappear partly because of the change in advance corporation tax. There is already a severe impact on a lot of companies, which now find that they have to cut benefits, move to direct benefit pensions—rather than direct contribution pensions—and considerably increase their own contributions to pension funds. Damage is already becoming apparent, but we shall see much more.
As for indirect taxes, the one that really affected individuals was the constant increase in fuel duties. Looking at the Chancellor's environmental measures, on which I shall comment in a moment, he has now recognised that technological improvements have made a bigger contribution to our climate change targets and so on than any increase in fuel duty. In fact, the Chancellor's continued increase in the fuel duty escalator was simply for revenue-gathering purposes, not for any environmental reason. It was only because of the outcry last autumn that the Chancellor called a halt to that. The impact of indirect taxes such as those has been very severe indeed, particularly on rural areas.
It is because the collected stealth taxes do not make a direct impact on individuals that the Chancellor's figures suggesting that various households are better off are so misleading. His calculations in the Budget documents


about people being better off refer only to direct tax. The situation looks very different if we take into account all the indirect taxes.
The Chancellor is at it again with the stealth taxes that were not announced in the Budget, but which leaked out later. The 7.5 per cent. increase in the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions announced this week is an increase of three times the rate of inflation. Many individuals earning about £30,000 will be worse off as a result of the Chancellor's measures because that stealth tax was not announced in the Budget. We did not hear anything about it in the Budget for the simple reason that the Chancellor wanted to introduce it stealthily.
Another reason for the fiscal surplus has been the restraint on public expenditure in the Chancellor's first two years, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon correctly referred. That restraint was spun out by the treble counting that we kept hearing, year after year. Figures were repeated constantly by the spin doctors and by the Prime Minister, accumulating three years' increases in expenditure and giving the impression that they were being introduced all at once. That is one of the reasons why the public were unaware that many of the increases were nothing like as large as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor tried to pretend.
There has also been an underspend in the departmental expenditure limits, by £2 billion last year and £1 billion this year. That could be one of the reasons why a reluctant Chancellor managed eventually to allow the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to announce changes to the amounts of agrimonetary compensation last week. The underspend no doubt made that very easy for the Chancellor. It is a pity that the announcement was linked to foot and mouth disease, because it has nothing to do with it and should have been introduced much earlier.
I also suspect that the underspend made it possible for the Chancellor to announce what I thought was going to be another smoke and mirrors announcement: the £1 billion increase in health and education. I was watching for an element of retreading or reannouncing of an announcement that had already been made. I grant that that did not happen on this occasion, but the three years' increases were rolled into one and made to look very much larger than they are. The increase in education, for example, is £290 million next year, a far cry from the impression of £1 billion that was given. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who has just left the Chamber, that education spending as a proportion of GDP under the previous Government was higher than it has been under the Labour Government over the past four years.
I shall make one comment on part of the educational spend—the new £290 million—which is that I welcome the conversion to the way in which we approach education spending in terms of the direct payments to schools announced as part of the package. I notice that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment spoke today about greater delegation of budgets and giving more freedom to head teachers. Well, what a conversion. One of the most damaging things that he did was to abolish the grant-maintained schools approach, in which a large

proportion of the spend was directly delegated to head teachers, who were given the freedom to spend it as they wished.
I agree with the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about the way in which so many of the education initiatives have been ring-fenced and small, giving the impression of great initiatives and great activity, when they would have been much better directed if they had been given directly to the schools in lump sums.
On health, the reality on the ground and the spin relating to the amount of money are poles apart. A general practitioner in a small village called Brooke in my constituency is retiring. It is proving very difficult—indeed. I think that it will be almost impossible—to replace that GP. One reason is the shortage of money. When I tried to discover whether the relevant funds could be rolled forward into the next three years, I was told that the Norfolk area health authority and the primary care groups were under huge pressure in relation to their budgets. That is the reality on the ground, and the announcement made last week will not make a great deal of difference.
More smoke and mirrors, now. I noticed, when I started to read through the press releases, that many of the tax reductions and grants are, as in the previous Budget, in years two and three. The impression is given that all those goodies will be immediately available, but we shall have to wait for two or three years for them to come through.
Furthermore, press release No. 1 from the Inland Revenue is absolutely littered with proposals which, when we examine them, turn out to be proposals to consult on this, that and the next thing. They give the impression of substantial giveaways to companies—many of the proposals affect the corporate sector—while doing almost nothing at all. As a former Minister with responsibility for small businesses, I can say that the changes proposed for small and medium-sized enterprises are absolutely minimal. The spin is much greater than the reality.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, I want to give credit to the Chancellor on two counts. First, on the macro-economic front he has not, by and large, pursued old Labour policies. He has avoided the ludicrously high rates of tax and the reckless spending that we saw under previous Labour Governments. I freely acknowledge that, because of that and the continuation of many of the policies that we were pursuing, he has been able to make a significant repayment of debt. Any Chief Secretary to the Treasury—especially one of my political composition—would always wish to be in that position. In fact, I was close to getting to it myself when I was Chief Secretary, and my point about inheritance was that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon who inherited the opportunity to repay debt.
I acknowledge that the Chancellor has been able to repay that debt, very much for the other reasons that I have given. However, he is in serious danger of throwing away his advantage. I sometimes wonder why there are so many rumours about an imminent election. I suspect that it is because the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do not want to wait until the autumn because they are aware that, given the slowdown in the American economy, the difficulties in Japan and the possible repercussions of globalisation that we experience from


time to time, the fiscal drag and the opportunity to repay debt might quickly start to move away. I suspect that that is one reason for having an early election.
However, we must also take into account the threat to the Chancellor's position on the repayment of debt. According to the Red Book—this point has now been well documented and commented on—in the next three years, the increases in public expenditure are planned at between 6 and 7 per cent. a year, with the three years growth estimated at very much less than that. Anyone who has been involved with the Treasury will know that, in terms of the surplus or the deficit—because we are talking about a small residual figure in relation to the expenditure numbers and the revenue numbers—if the economy moves into a slowdown, or if we spend much more than the growth in the economy, we can quickly experience a reverse in that repayment of debt and in the improvement that the Chancellor has been able to achieve on that front. That is the danger.
I also want to give credit to the Chancellor on the environmental front. I strongly welcome the reductions in fuel duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol, and a number of the other proposals in the Budget designed to improve the environmental aspects of transport generally. I remember clearly that I was Chief Secretary when my noble Friend Lord Lawson was Chancellor and we introduced the first reduction in duty on unleaded petrol. Although we were all in favour of that measure, we greatly underestimated the impact that that reduction would have on quickly moving everyone over to the use of unleaded petrol.
I generally welcome the Chancellor's proposals on environmental issues, but he is persisting with the climate change levy, with all the damage that it will do to the many businesses that will not be compensated by the national insurance reductions. He promises an aggregates levy next year, but that will be equally damaging to certain parts of our industry, and the threat of the pesticides tax to agriculture has still not gone away. If we read the small print, we discover that there is still the threat of a pesticides tax being introduced next year. I can think of nothing more harmful to our beleaguered agriculture industry at the present time than the continuation of that threat.
I have further detailed points to make. I believe that the climate change levy should not have been proceeded with and that the pesticides tax and the aggregates levy should not be introduced. I am sad that the Chancellor did not reverse IR35. When I was in California last September, I talked to a lot of Brits who work in the high-tech and biotech industries. Although California was the magnet that attracted British expertise from these shores, the spike of IR35 has greatly accelerated the trend and the visit to India made by the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce provided one of the more ludicrous examples of its impact.
The Minister tried to recruit skilled consultants in the high-tech industries, for whom an accelerated immigration procedure was to be introduced, because we were losing our people. We have had to turn to others because IR35 has forced home-grown consultants from our shores.

Mr. Brooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fastest-growing sport in the state of California is cricket, which is played in silicon valley?

Mr. MacGregor: As always, my right hon. Friend, through an illustration or an anecdote, makes the point extremely well.
I understand that the Chancellor has a passion for and obsession with detail, and that certainly shows in the complexity of so many of the new measures. As with education and getting budgets into schools, I believe that it is much more sensible to reduce taxation on families generally than to introduce a series of directed schemes that appear to be favourable and attractive to families. It is much better to leave families to make their own choices.
The complexity that we are beginning to detect on the tax credit front is frightening. Following the working families tax credit, a series of extremely complicated tax credits has been introduced. I must tell the Chief Secretary that I hope that that is not another way to fiddle the figures by reducing the public expenditure totals, as was done by the working families tax credit. The first of the two more serious consequences of such an approach is complexity for the recipients, and I am not surprised that there is not a big take-up.
Coming to the House in the car the day after the Budget, I listened to "Money Box Live". All the questions were about tax credits and the experts had great difficulty in explaining them. A lot of people outside the House simply will not comprehend them and I understand that the form is 40 pages long. That is not the way to set about establishing new systems, nor is it the way to encourage take-up.
Anyone who has tried to complete a self-assessment tax form this year, as I have, will have discovered that, because of a number of minor changes that the Chancellor has introduced to the tax system, that form is also 40 pages long and extremely complex. 1 happened to fill in my own, but it represents a bonanza for accountants, who will have to spend much longer on it. Introducing schemes of such complexity is not the right way to proceed and, of course, the burden on employers will be substantial too.
In the light of what is undoubtedly a Budget that will greatly exacerbate the complexity of our systems, I await the Chancellor's proposals on simplifying tax. It is perhaps significant that the press release on that subject comes last of all the Budget press releases. What is being simplified this year? The measures, which are the most minor that one could imagine, conclude with
increasing to £50 the de minimis limits within corporation tax, self-employed income tax and VAT for business expenditure on gifts, so that fewer minor items need to be reported and tracked by business.
Big deal, when so many complexities are being introduced.
On savings, I have to declare an interest. As stated in the Register of Members' Interests, I am a non-executive director of a life assurance company. However, my remarks are geared not to that, but to pensioners. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) said that the Chancellor wears a hair shirt and is greatly interested in thrift. She might be right about the hair shirt, but he shows his interest in thrift in funny ways. We know how much the savings ratio has dropped—it has more than halved and is down to 3.75 per cent. this year from about 11 per cent. when the Government took office.
I regard that as serious, but I am not at all surprised when I consider ISAs—which replaced PEPs and TESSAs and are nothing like as good by any measure—and the


changes to pension fund income in relation to advance corporation tax. I predict that the stakeholder pension scheme will not do for the Government what they hope it will. It certainly will not achieve substantial take-up among the targeted income group—those who earn between £9,000 and £18,000. Indeed, the scheme is likely to proceed in such a way that there will probably be many fewer providers and much larger ones than in the past. That, too, will not produce the results that the Government seek, although I am certainly with them in wishing to encourage much more take-up of pension contributions at a much earlier age from all employees.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that savings ratios tend to go down at a time of consumer confidence and economic stability? The majority of people's savings these days is in their houses, not in conventional savings accounts, and the savings ratio does not take on board wealth accumulated in housing.

Mr. MacGregor: When providing for old age or saving for other reasons, it is not helpful to put all one's money into a house.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: Let me finish. I was a great supporter of the original Conservative concept of the property-owning democracy and supported all the way through every measure that we took to achieve it, but it has been achieved. The next stage is the share-owning democracy and the vast majority of the population providing for their own pensions. We all know, and the public widely recognise, that the state system will not do that, which is why I want to encourage those other measures and why it is worrying that the savings ratio has gone down.
There was speculation before the Budget that the Chancellor would introduce a measure to deal with the fact that people with personal pensions have to purchase an annuity by the age of 75. The concerns about the current system have been well documented, not least in a report by a retirement income working party headed by Oonagh McDonald, a former colleague in the House who participated in debates on the Finance Bill. I shall not go into those concerns because of the shortage of time, but they are well understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has introduced a private Member's Bill to address the matter, but as far as I can see the Government took every step to talk it out last Friday. Why is not such a measure in the Budget? Why are not the Government removing the deadline age limit of 75, by which one must have turned to a retirement annuity? If we are in a low-inflation environment, annuities will pay much less so it would be much better for individuals—certainly with their personal pensions—to subscribe enough to what the McDonald working party report describes as an index-linked annuity to meet a minimum retirement income. That would cover the possibility that individuals may squander their money. not have enough and, in due course, rely on a minimum income guarantee from the state.
I agree that it is right to protect that, and people have been working out ways to do so, but, beyond it, there is no reason why people who have been encouraged to build

up personal or money-purchase pensions should be encumbered with such a restrictive regime, which, in my view, is out of date, not least because they would have nothing to pass on to their families. Therefore, it is sensible to introduce a measure to remove the deadline age limit, and the absence of that represents a great gap in the Budget. I hope that it will be addressed and I am interested to know why the Government have set their face against such a measure.
This may be the last time that I speak in the Chamber and I echo all the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. Participating in so many Budget and Finance Bill debates has been a tremendous experience, but, above all, it has been a privilege and a thrill to be a Member of the House.

Mr. Colin Burgon: As a relatively humble Back-Bencher, I am proud to take part in a debate with the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), and the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I hope that they will still have further contributions to make. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon is a straight man whom I respect. I also respect his experience, but I think that it was Frederick the Great who said:
Experience is useless unless the correct conclusions are drawn.
Perhaps we will have to debate these issues further.
After the Budget, like all good constituency MPs, I went out and about trying to judge people's mood and find out what they thought about the proposals. I should like to cover three subjects that have been drawn to my attention: education, the environment and pensioners.
On education, I did not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). On Thursday, I went to West Garforth primary school to meet the head teacher, Ann Oxley, and open a computer suite, thanks to Government funding. The head was pleasantly surprised to hear that the amount of money she was expecting to receive for her small primary school had leapt from £10,000 to £13,000. Similarly, down the road in Allerton Bywater primary school, a larger school in my home village, Gill Weatherhead, the head teacher was delighted to hear that her expected sum of £50,000 had leapt to £63,000. Likewise, the amount for the two large comprehensives in my constituency, at Boston Spa and Garforth, leapt from £92,000 to £115,000. That is money well spent and well received.
We must be honest. I wish that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was still present. I used to be a neighbour of his in more ways than one: I am a neighbour as an MP and he taught just up the road from where I taught. He got a lot more money than I did, and I was in a tougher school—but then again, he was a head teacher, so he can speak with authority. Any MP who goes round schools and talks to teachers must accept that they recognise that more money is coming in, but that is not the full picture.
We must address two problems. First, I hope that when we are re-elected at the general election, whenever that may be, we will do something about teachers' pay structure. Secondly, we must deal with an area that will otherwise give us problems by supporting teachers in the most difficult aspect of their job, which is maintaining discipline. There is no doubt that it is impossible to


contain some pupils in an ordinary school setting, so we must consider pupil referral units. Such units are costly, but they are productive. If the element that is difficult to control were removed, teachers could get on with the job of teaching.
I do not think that I am so aggressive or imposing that head teachers cannot speak to me frankly, and not one of them has ever told me that they want a full, 100 per cent. devolved budget. If the argument is that head teachers are already disappearing under a sea of bureaucracy and paperwork, such a move would involve them in even more bureaucracy, whether it be on school dinners, school transport or special needs. I did not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Member for Maidenhead.
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comments on the big issue of recruitment and retention. It is no good trying to shy away from this problem. I welcome the £35 million to be invested in the new management information system. It is our job as MPs—certainly on the Labour Benches—to ensure that the claim that the new system will lighten the load of data collection is delivered. Teachers tell me that the amount of paperwork they receive is extremely time consuming. I regularly receive a lecture from my brother, who is a head teacher and who tells me how much time he has to spend dealing with forms.
In the discussions I have with teachers, I encourage them to speak their minds, and in response I am allowed to speak mine. After having a face-to-face, full and frank discussion with staff of a large comprehensive in my constituency, I asked the head teacher—I shall not say who—"Don't they realise the amount of money that is going in? I can't believe their reaction." He said that, at the end of the day, they will vote Labour, because they know that a Labour Government will deliver the resources they need. We may have an argument with teachers, but it is within the family, and I feel confident that they will support us.
We need to get a grip on the lack of cover in schools. In my city of Leeds, several schools are balloting on strike action. If a pool of people is not available now—to be blunt, supply teachers are of variable quality—I am not sure what strike action will achieve.
I am also interested in the Chancellor's proposals on the environment and how they affect my city of Leeds. Leeds takes a dual approach to many matters. It has an affluent outer core, and an inner-city core where the business sector has developed. It also has areas of devastating poverty. The steps that the Chancellor has taken to regenerate Britain's towns and cities, such as Leeds, are excellent. I want to highlight three or four key proposals.
The stamp duty exemption for property transactions in the most disadvantaged areas is an excellent measure. My right hon. Friend has cut VAT to 5 per cent. to encourage renovation and conversion of existing property, and he has proposed 100 per cent. capital allowances for creating flats over shops. I hope that people will support all those ideas.
I am particularly interested in the 150 per cent. accelerated tax credits to help to clean up contaminated land. That is good news for the industrial and old mining areas of Leeds that I represent. The only bad news is that that was not done a few years ago. In my home village of

Allerton Bywater, the colliery site has just been reclaimed. I wish that the tax incentives had been available at that time.
Those measures taken in conjunction with the various planning legislation that the Government have introduced—I am thinking principally of planning policy guidance note 3—provide a package of measures that show the interrelation between the inner city and the suburbs, whose fates are inextricably linked. In Leeds, we are developing housing in the city centre. We must ensure that it is not only flats for wealthy people. If we use our derelict land effectively, it will help us to protect our greenfield sites. I hope that Conservative Members agree with us on that issue.
The proposals in the Budget that have preoccupied me most are those relating to pensioners. Like all MPs, if I had a pound for every time a pensioner chewed my ear, I would not be here—I would be sunning myself somewhere. Pensioners are great people, because they speak their minds. As long as I can speak my mind back to them, I welcome that. I welcome the priorities in the Budget that will improve pensioners' incomes. It is important to consider the strategy that the Labour Government have developed over the years. It represents a giant step forward, but we have a few more to take.
In an overall strategy of ending pensioner poverty by 2010, the Government have taken the initial steps of increasing the basic state pension by more than the rate of inflation to £72.50 for a single pensioner and to £115.90 for a pensioner couple; increasing the amount of income that is taxed at the low rate of 10 per cent., which will help an estimated 3 million pensioners; and increasing the minimum income guarantee to £92.15 for a single person and £140.55 for a pensioner couple.
When the MIG was introduced, like most other MPs, I ran campaigns up and down my constituency to raise awareness of the guarantee and to encourage people to take it up. In such wonderful-sounding places as Swillington, Allerton Bywater and Swarcliffe, we engaged in vigorous discussions about the Government's policy on pensioners and the minimum income guarantee.
An important aspect of the Budget for pensioners, and for me—after all, I may well be a pensioner soon—is the announcement of the start in 2003 of the pension credit scheme, which will reward the 5.5 million pensioners who have made the sacrifice of contributing to modest works pensions, and/or saving for their later years. I encountered many households with very small tailors' or miners' pensions, for instance—they were usually the husbands' pensions; for some strange reason women tend to outlive men, and research will doubtless explain why—which prevented them from claiming other benefits. That rankled with them. I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should like to claim that they have listened to me, although greater forces were probably at work. In any event, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
During that first half of 2000, I went out of my way to meet as many of my pensioner constituents as possible to promote the minimum income guarantee. They raised a question which I hope the pension credit scheme has at last begun to answer. Under the scheme the sacrifices that they made while in work will be recognised, and credit will be given for modest pensions and savings. I am gratified to note that pension credit will be linked


to earnings, thus giving pensioners more than they would have received through the restoration of the link between the basic state pension and earnings.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech, and I am enjoying listening to it. However, given his interest in thrift and prudence, and the inevitable and perhaps desirable fact that people will themselves always have to contribute to the pot from which they draw on retirement, would he in principle endorse the notion that we should abolish tax on savings for basic rate taxpayers?

Mr. Burgon: Not at this stage. I think it would be financially irresponsible to do so.
Let us consider what the Labour Government have already done. I said that we should see everything in context, and there are things that I never forget—and never forget to remind pensioners about when they speak to me in the street, whether in a friendly or in an abrasive manner. We have provided winter fuel payments of £200 in every household containing someone over 60; we have provided free television licences for those over 75; and we have given pensioners the right to free eye tests. In June, we will introduce a national bus scheme for pensioners guaranteeing at least half-price fares. The fares will be 20 per cent. of the full amount in Leeds, so we are not doing badly. We have reduced value-added tax on fuel to 5 per cent. We have introduced the home energy efficiency scheme, which gives pensioners grants of up to £2,000 to install central heating and insulation. We estimate that that scheme will benefit some 400,000 pensioners over the next three years, and we hope to hit our target of ending pensioner fuel poverty by 2010.
In our dialogue with our constituents, we must also present the alternative, because a choice may have to be made in a year or less. When considering the Conservative party's approach to pensioners, we must take account of three or four key facts. Under the Conservatives, the gap between the poorest and the richest pensioners grew to its widest since 1960. They allowed the value of the basic state pension to decline throughout their years in office: by 1997, one in three pensioners lived in poverty. They scrapped free eye tests, and cut free travel passes. They condemned more than 4 million pensioner households to fuel poverty.
I can offer the Conservative party a way out. [Interruption.] It is not suicide, as someone has just suggested from a sedentary position. On Saturday, I was in Kippax, Garforth and Wetherby. An old couple came up to me in Wetherby—traditionally, a rock-solid Conservative bastion—pushing a trolley, and nearly knocking me down with it. In the course of our subsequent conversation, they told me that they had never been so well off: they were doing really well under this Government. I replied that it was brilliant to hear that, because quite often a certain group of pensioners did nothing but give me a hard time. They said "Mr. Burgon, they will only be happy if you give them a gold pig." I offer this advice to the Conservative party: the only way back to power lies in offering every pensioner a gold pig.
There is no doubt that the buzz on the ground is that Labour has delivered a very positive Budget. I know that the Chancellor did not have one eye on the election,

because he is not like that: his strategy is quite different. However, I am delighted that a by-product of the great effort that he has put in is the laying of the groundwork for a Labour victory.

Sir David Madel: In his Budget speech, the Chancellor made a glancing reference to farming industry. He referred to
farming—an industry essential to Britain, which today faces immediate and long-standing difficulties".
Since he made that reference, things have got much worse, and they are getting much worse for the tourist industry as well. A real crisis is brewing up. I know that a number of electioneering speeches have been made over the past few days, but the Government need to consider the implications of what is happening in farming and tourism if they decide to plump for 3 May.
The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) said that he had offered advice to the Conservative party. In return, I offer the Labour party some advice: if it has a big domestic crisis on its hands, the public expect Labour to solve it rather than running to the polls. We went through all this in February 1974. I vividly remember the reaction on the doorstep, and believe you me, if an election is called a year before it is necessary during a full-scale crisis in farming and the tourist industry, the party concerned will receive a pretty hostile response on the doorstep.
My advice to the Labour party is that of Mr. Harold Macmillan, who used to say that the time to call an election was in the autumn, when the charabancs had rolled back from Seville. I must update that now, and say that the time to call an election is when the airlines have safely delivered all their passengers to Luton airport after the summer peak time. Hon. Members will know why I make that particular point. I have no shares or other interest in easyJet, Britannia, Monarch or any of the others, so the sleaze-buster will not be upset by my reference to them.
Budgets always involve grand ideas and lots of detail. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) that this Chancellor hugely prefers detail. To me, the test of the Budget is whether unemployment will fall further and whether it will stay down, whether the 2.5 per cent. economic growth target will be met, what the effect of the United States slowdown will be on this country as Americans start to save rather than spend, and what will happen—the Chancellor mentioned this—if oil prices suddenly become volatile.
There are two grand schemes mentioned by the Chancellor to which I want to refer. In relation to unemployment, he said:
For the hard to employ, those still left behind, we are proposing from 1 April, at a cost of £200 million a year, a new regime built around more intensive coaching and stronger sanctions for the over-25s.
If that means—as I suspect it does—that local authorities will be involved in such essential work, they will inevitably have to take on more staff. I hope that the revenue support grant will be adjusted accordingly to take account of the additional staff who will be needed if they are to contribute to the employment of those who, in the Chancellor's words, have hitherto been hard to employ.
The second "grandish" scheme features in another part of the Budget statement. The Chancellor said:
Today we issue proposals and will consult on the best way to extend a research and development tax credit to the larger companies.
All I can say is that I hope the scheme will help research graduates just coming into work pay off their student debts and loans. I also hope that there will be comparable arrangements for medium-sized companies, which also go in for research and development.
I mentioned the Chancellor's devotion to detail. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk mentioned the problems over 1R35. Let me give a particularly muddled example. I have been in contact with the managing director of a company in my constituency, who said:
I have at long last managed to get a credible answer from the Inland Revenue to the question which I raised in November … whether an employee who has acquired a more-than-5 per cent. interest in my company through membership of an employee share scheme is subject to tax on her entire fees if she works on a time-and-materials contract which falls within the scope of clause 1(1)(c) of Schedule 12 to the Finance Act 2000.
The first reply that the managing director received from the Inland Revenue declared:
if the person alluded to in your letter is as you have stated an employee of your business being paid through the payroll the provisions of IR35 will not apply.
The managing director went on to say that that reply was
remarkably similar to Dawn Primarolo's response to you"—
"you" being me, as I had taken up the issue with the Government. That response stated:
If the person … is … an employee of'
that company,
then that person should already be on
the company's
payroll and the company should already he deducting PAYE and National Insurance Contributions from money earned. If that is the case, then the 'ir35' legislation will not apply.
The managing director's letter goes on to say:
Yet now, after repeated prodding, I have the following statement from the same Inspector who sent me the first reply:
I can confirm that if the work that your employee undertakes under any given contract were to fall within the scope of clause 1(1)(c) of the Finance Act 2000 then by virtue of the fact that a more-than-5 per cent. interest in the Company share capital has been acquired, as per clause 3(1)(a) and clause 3(4)(a), a liability would arise under IR35.'
It is a first-class muddle and an example of a business having to spend a lot of time worrying about the Inland Revenue and IR35 when it should be concentrating on the needs of its customers. We cannot say that we have not been warned. The February brief from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants warns that it is very concerned about the impact of IR35 on income and corporation tax self-assessment. The brief states:
IR35 mistakes made under the self-assessment arrangements could prove to be a ticking time bomb. If errors are made, they could lie undetected for years only to detonate in the future at huge expense to the individual or company concerned.
I should like to deal with another, albeit slightly different ticking time bomb. My right hon. Friend the Member for

Huntingdon (Mr. Major) mentioned inheritance tax levels. The Chancellor said this of his inheritance tax proposals:
I propose to raise the allowance, so that no tax will be charged on estates up to almost £1/4 million—a threshold of £242,000. Ninety-six per cent. of estates will pay no tax."—[Official Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 298-304.]
With house prices surging ahead in the south-east, how can he be so sure?
I also do not understand the reasoning behind some aspects of our tax system. When someone dies and something has to be done about the house, payment of tax is the first thing that must be done. The house cannot be sold until probate has been granted, but probate will not be granted until the tax has been paid. Surely we can change the system so that, when someone dies and leaves a house, the first charge on the money that is raised is for the taxman—who will be the first in the queue. I certainly do not believe that people should have to borrow to pay the notional tax on a house that has not been sold because probate has not been granted. I should think that that tax reform would appeal to the Chancellor's sense of detail, and that it should be introduced very quickly indeed.
The Government have another looming, detailed problem. Ministers have made much of help for the family and child minders and help with child care. I have a constituent who is a single mother with three children, aged six, three and one. She must pay £100 per week to the child minder and £12 per week to the play scheme which the middle child attends. My constituent gets back 70 per cent. of the £12 that she pays to the play scheme, but gets back nothing for the £100 per week that she pays to the child minder, because the child minder looks after the children not in her own house, but in the mother's house and is therefore classed as a nanny and not as a child minder. That particular child minder—just to make the situation more interesting—works in the play scheme looking after the middle child at certain times of day. The only reason why she is able to do that is that she has the necessary qualifications.
It is a detailed muddle. I do not understand why my constituent cannot claim back money because the child minder looks after her children in her own home. If I have encountered that problem, other hon. Members will have done so too. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and those who advise on tax credits advised that constituent to see me, which she did on Saturday morning.
Like my right hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon and for South Norfolk, I found some good things in the Budget. In South-West Bedfordshire, we have had the tremendous shock of Vauxhall's decision to stop building cars at Luton next year. I was heartened when a statement from management this week stated:
Vauxhall management will continue to take all reasonable steps to avoid any compulsory redundancies as a result of the restructuring".
The management is hopeful that it will achieve that aim. It also goes on to say—this is music in my ears—that it has reaffirmed its
undertaking to pursue new business opportunities in the UK.
I hope that those opportunities will come in the Dunstable and Houghton Regis area. The Chancellor's comments in the Budget statement were very relevant for my area because he said that there would be six targeted tax cuts to speed up regeneration, at a cost of more than £1 billion over the next five years. He also said that he


will do more to clean up contaminated land and help to revitalise high streets, with 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances to bring empty flats over shops back into the residential market. He also said that there will be more help for the Small Business Service. However, he made not one mention or glancing reference to the need to improve the infrastructure in my constituency to make those changes happen. They will not happen until we get new roads such as the Dunstable bypass and other improvements.
This speech—like those of my right hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon and for South Norfolk—will pretty definitely be my last in this Chamber. I echo everything that they have said. However, the greatest privilege for me has been to represent my constituents in this place for almost 31 years. Above all, I want the employment base to become strong again in South-West Bedfordshire, after some horrific shocks over the years. I want us to remain an industrial area. We want a hand up from the Government, not a handout, and that entails immediate improvements to our infrastructure. When I leave the House of Commons, I want above all to be able to say to my constituents that action has been taken to reduce unemployment and to retain my constituency as a powerful industrial base.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Listening to some of the speeches by Opposition Members, I was a little bemused by their recollection of the state of play in 1997. They have described a golden legacy. My memory is of debt doubling and of interest rates being much higher than they are now. I also remember talking to the chief economist of the NatWest bank, who pointed out that the interest rate cycle varies from 7 to 15 per cent. We are now enjoying the low part of that cycle and a stable economy.
Before the Government were elected, unemployment was 1.1 million higher, and inflation was much higher. There were also much higher levels of bankruptcy and repossession. The picture being painted by Opposition Members is a figment of their imagination. Since 1997, the themes in the Chancellor's Budgets—promoting stability, prosperity and fairness, and the focus on benefits to families and businesses—have been remarkably consistent. It is those themes that have regenerated Britain and will serve us in good stead for the future.
Hon. Members will remember that, in the first couple of years of this Government, the overall economic picture was a bit precarious. Hon. Members will recall the so-called south-east Asian financial crisis—when a quarter of the world economy was in recession, world growth targets were halved and Opposition Members were predicting an awful recession and saying that the Government's expenditure plans were grossly irresponsible. They have obviously forgotten all that, and we have moved forward. We still face global threats—the United States economy is slowing down and the Japanese economy is barely growing. Yet there is a robust certainty in the way in which we are moving forward, having prudently paid off debt and repositioned ourselves in the global marketplace for the good of Britain.
We have put an extra 1.1 million people in the workplace; they are making a contribution, rather than taking enormous amounts of money in unemployment

benefit and lost tax. The average cost of an unemployed person is some £12,000 a year. In my borough of Croydon, where I was leader of the council, the unemployment figure has been reduced by 4,877, translating into a saving of £58 million every year that can be invested in more services or tax reductions. Indeed, they are being invested in both, for the good of my constituents and the wider economy.
Getting 1.1 million people back into work is the key to the Government's success in being able credibly to say that they will invest more in public services and reduce taxes. The other side of the coin is that people know that Conservative economic policy means lower employment, hence higher taxes and cuts in public services—the worst of both worlds. It is very important, as we approach another time for public decision, that people realise that fundamental difference.
It is not by choice or by legacy that we are enjoying the current economic environment, but by decision and difficult choice. The Bank of England's independence was one of the Chancellor's first master strokes. It immediately took the risk premium out of interest rates. Long-term interest rates dipped and are at a 30-year low. Independence encouraged more investment in jobs, enabled consumers to enjoy lower mortgage payments and allowed stability to reign in the economy and the housing market. In addition, the new deal meant that people who had been taken out of the labour market and had disengaged from the habit of work could get back into work and make their contribution. The Chancellor's overall fiscal management was excellent.
I intervened on the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), when he was describing how he saw his past. The hard facts show that, in 1996–97, the previous Government's total managed public expenditure was 41.2 per cent. of gross domestic product and 6 per cont. of that went on borrowing. The previous Government did not take tough decisions—although they imposed 22 tax increases—but decided to borrow and borrow, thereby doubling debt. We are all familiar with the statistic that for every pound spent since 1979, 42p went on borrowing, debt and dole. Now that figure has been reduced to 16 per cent.
If we compare the percentage of GDP that was tax plus borrowing in 1996–07—38.2 per cent.—with the figure for 1999–00 of 36.2 per cent., which is 2 percentage points lower, that represents £19 billion more that would have been taxed or borrowed under the Tories. That is an equivalent of 7.3p on income tax. If we were doing what the Tories did with the economy, which we have enlarged through economic prosperity, the punter would be paying 7 per cent. more tax.
People need to realise that, under the Tories, taxes would be higher and cuts deeper because of economic incompetence. They have already announced £16 billion worth of cuts in planned expenditure, but that is a massive underestimate. We must add to it the cost of higher unemployment. For example, the borough of Croydon would be looking at cuts of £72 million a year against planned investment, plus the £58 million saving resulting from people who are back in work. That is a total of £130 million a year—an enormous amount for a borough such as Croydon. It does not bear thinking about.
There have been references to the savings ratio. People are saving less because of economic confidence and because the primary method of saving in the modem economy is through housing, and house prices have been going up.
I realise why the right hon. Member for Huntingdon painted the picture that he did, but I did not recognise it. The Conservatives were responsible for unsustainable borrowing and debt which would inevitably have meant the road to ruin for any business. Thank goodness the Chancellor arrived; he has balanced the books by making tough decisions about containing cost, focusing on job creation and repaying debt. In addition, the cost of that debt has come down because marker confidence has led to lower Bank of England interest rates. All those factors have combined to provide a more benign economic picture.
Let us compare that with the shadow Chancellor's proposition to ask the Monetary Policy Committee to reduce target inflation from 2.5 per cent. to 2 per cent. We should remember that the Conservatives did not want a Monetary Policy Committee; they did not want independence for the Bank of England. Now they have come round to the idea—in fact, they have gone a step further. They know that the public have no confidence in their capabilities, so they want an independent commission to look at fiscal policy as well. Their attitude is, "Don't worry, vote Conservative and we will not actually manage the economy at all. We will ask Evan Davies of 'Newsnight' to do it."
The Conservatives want a 2 per cent. inflation target. I realise that, given the good management of the economy, that would be achievable in terms of the current inflation rate. However, that is not a desirable constraint because it would inevitably mean that, other things being equal, interest rates would have to be higher than they would otherwise be. That would reduce investment and increase the cost of mortgages, thereby increasing unemployment, debt costs, and the cost of unemployment, and reducing the tax take.
Even if the right thing to do were handed to the Conservatives on a plate, they would go back to the bad old days of boom and bust. That is why their claims to match our expenditure and our action on taxes are completely unbelievable.

Mr. Willis: To give the hon. Gentleman a break, does he think that that is why, in last Friday's Yorkshire Post, Mr. Paul Sykes, the multimillionaire who has rejoined the Conservative party, said:
I don't want anything to do with the Conservative Party. They are a disaster."?

Mr. Davies: I do not have time to list all the possible reasons for Mr. Sykes to come to that conclusion. Many people come to that conclusion for a variety of reasons. Obviously, Mr. Sykes is particularly interested in not joining the single currency, for reasons best known to himself. He does not want to attach his campaign to the Conservatives' failed campaign. He does not want to attach himself to a bunch of losers, so he is keeping his money in the bank, keeping his powder dry, and he will fight his own campaign on the single currency.
We are all concerned about sovereignty, as opposed to the single currency. Sovereignty is, by definition, about having maximum control over the choices that dictate our

destiny. Are we around the table, leading the debate, or are we on the sidelines, being led by the "Nos"? I have nothing against people who live in the rest of Europe, but some of the speeches made in Harrogate suggested that much of the policy is led by a loathing of foreigners as opposed to a rational analysis of the pros and cons of the single currency and of integration.
Turning back to the good fortune that I see personally in Croydon as a result of the masterly management of the economy, the NHS locally has received an extra £18 million. There is a linkage between good health, a strong economy and good education. People who are able to work more regularly are healthier and happier. Their morale is higher—that is good for the economy. We can see that in the police force in London, where the reduction of absenteeism has added the equivalent of 500 police officers to the force.
The Mayday hospital in Croydon does not have the best reputation in the world, but there have been an extra 2,000 operations; there are 90 more nurses, a new kidney unit and a new maternity unit, and the accident and emergency department has been refurbished. Things are getting better; people realise that. They want more and that is what they are getting.
I know that hon. Members are interested in the education situation in Croydon. There is an extra £370 per pupil. Standards are rising—an improvement of 13 per cent. in mathematics since 1997. Primary class sizes are smaller. There are difficulties in teacher recruitment, but that is part of the wider economic success that the country is enjoying. If 1.1 million more people have jobs, if after-tax income has gone up by 10 per cent.—as it has—and if the labour market is tight, graduates or trained teachers enjoy more choice. We must work harder to get those people into the classroom. We are working harder and they are coming into the profession. The other day, a chap who had just left college told me that, because of the "golden hello", he was becoming a mathematics teacher—good luck to him.
We are investing in areas that faced economic and poverty challenges. Often, because of economic circumstances and educational background—in respect of the availability of books in the family home—people from those areas have not succeeded as much as they might have done. That is why we have an education action zone in Croydon, where the business community has come to the table—I helped in that process. Companies such as Sainsbury and Mondial Assistance see that initiative as a one-way street to success.
Individual self-esteem is being raised. Often children are held back in school because perhaps their parents or parent say, "I didn't do very well in school son, and you're not very bright. School's not a very good thing." That holds people back. Education action zones break down those difficulties with more investment and more new ideas. That brings new success by raising standards that will shape the life choices of our children so that they can contribute to the new economy that is growing for the future.
Education is the key to the new economy and the family is the key to education. The big challenge faced by the Government, in a tight labour market, is how to add to productivity and skills. Yes, we can do so through technology, but also by enabling parents—especially women with young children—to engage flexibly with the


labour market in a way that does not ruin their family life. With a family of small children, it is extremely difficult to engage meaningfully with the labour market. That is why we have introduced all the extra benefits—the working families tax credit, the children's tax credit and help with child care. There is universal provision of nursery schooling at four—now at three. There is extra provision before and after school. Those measures are of enormous importance to providing flexibility.
People with very young children also have the choice to stay at home to look after them. As a parent of very young children, aged six, three and three months, I believe it important to invest enough time with them—reading to them, and so on. We must create a flexible environment whereby people can engage in the labour market and have a meaningful family life. That is why we have invested more in maternity and paternity benefits. I very much welcome that. With working families tax credit and children's tax credit, working families are better off than ever.
Employment is growing and productivity is rising. There are some interesting misconceptions about productivity growth; some criticisms have been made. Last Friday, at a dinner of the Chartered Institute of Bankers, there was a question about relative productivity rates and the slow-down in productivity growth, and I pointed out the simple fact that if employment is quickly increased by 1.1 million, it is obvious that the extra people will be less productive on average than the existing stock of workers. One would expect current average productivity to go down, because marginal productivity is less than the existing average. After any rapid increase in employment, productivity will slow down in the short term, but will then quickly speed up. That is the Chancellor's ambition and I am sure that with the investment in education, skills and information technology, our economy will go from strength to strength.
Business is, of course, the basis of the prosperity that we enjoy and that we invest in the social products which we all consume—through education and health. Businesses are succeeding. As someone who has run his own business and worked in multinationals, I believe it right to hold robust discussions on red tape, discrimination and the relative focus on administration versus entrepreneurial activity. However, it is also right to remember that some of the key costs identified by the British Chambers of Commerce—the minimum wage and the working time directive—themselves make contributions towards more profitable and productive business. When those costs are taken out, the BCC's somewhat exaggerated claims become massively deflated.
Enabling people to join the labour market effectively and profitably is part of the process of business success. People who run small businesses say that there is too much red tape, but when one asks them whether they are making more money and employing more people, the answer is, "Yes, yes, business is good." If we had listened to the Opposition, we would be back in the world of small business bankruptcy that we all vividly remember.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) mentioned that he would have liked to reduce debt. Sadly, his Government increased debt. He said that he would have liked to give more help to small

and medium enterprises. Sadly, bankruptcies ran at a record high. We have delivered his aspirations; I am glad about that.
On the environment, people have mentioned the fuel tax problems. We all know that fuel taxes in Britain are higher than they are on the continent. However, income and other taxes are higher on the continent, so on average, taxes are much lower in this country. That is a clear choice. When people tell me, "I have paid too much for my petrol," I say that, yes, it is right that the Chancellor has taken away the escalator because world oil prices have risen.
People have a choice. Do they want income tax or fuel tax? I do not have a queue of people asking for more income tax. If I did, we could discuss the matter. However, I do have a queue of people worried about asthma in children and about the environment they live in. The people wit complain about greenfield site developments need to understand that we have to create a good environment in our towns and cities in respect of air quality, education and security. Those are key drivers that make towns nicer places to live in. That is what I am pressing for in Croydon as a local MP. People understand that there are better alternatives in transport. I very much back the extra investment in public transport to be made over the next 10 years.
Through the combined effort delivered in the Budget, we have a situation in which education standards are being driven forward to help the economy, but where the economy also helps education. Health is improving; that is helping the economy. Institutionalised poverty tends to cluster—in bad housing, bad health, bad education and poor pay. Those problems, which were endemic under Conservative Governments, are being targeted directly and broken down. We are taking an enormous step forward.
Only a few years ago, those of us who talked about full employment were told that it could not happen again. We were asked how we could compete with the developing world, but we are doing just that by empowering people with skills and by providing the infrastructure and the human-based services that people desperately need, whether in care homes, public services or, indeed, in restaurants and all the other services that we enjoy because of our higher disposable incomes. All those things are moving forward; we are living in a better Britain. There are difficulties and there is a long way to go, however.
Crime is an issue, but it is down by 10 per cent. Many people are misled about crime. As hon. Members may know, the British crime survey is the only reliable indicator of all actual crime. It records all crime in a sample of about 20,000 people and shows that crime is down by 10 per cent., as crime recorded by the police represents only between a quarter and a fifth of total crime. A bit more crime is being recorded, so people believe that there is a real problem.
We need to invest in more Bobbies and Beatrices on the beat; we need to make progress on crime. As a London Member, I am glad that an extra 2,044 police will be provided and that, because of previous Budgets, almost an extra £3,500 has been added to the pay of new police recruits. I am also glad about the extra investment in closed circuit television and in partnerships with councils.
In my own area, the police budget is about £30 million; the local authority budget is, of course, 10 times that amount, so much of the incremental, unseen investment in combating crime takes place through local authority partnerships. It is not surprising that crime is down when we have more people in work and more people are being educated. The difficulties with mobile phone thefts and one-on-one assaults are being confronted, but they are non-financial issues.
Overall, in relation to business success, our fundamental services, stability, mortgage payers and the wider community, we have much to be proud of in the Budget; it is a stepping stone to the future. We do not want to be complacent, but actions such as paying off an enormous amount of debt strengthen us for the inevitable buffeting of the world economy, in which the future is unpredictable. We are stronger and better prepared than any of our European partners, and I commend the Budget to Parliament.

Mr. David Davis: I feel privileged to speak, bracketed between the valedictory speeches of several hon. Members who are among the most admired—certainly by me—in the House. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), a colleague of mine on the Public Accounts Committee, although he will understand if I disagree with almost everything that he said, as will become apparent in a moment.
I should like to address the Budget in the context of the Government's overall economic strategy—especially that on taxation, spending and borrowing—of the past four years and its long-term implications. The one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, Central is that the Budget has had a good press. The public sector financial figures look healthy at first sight. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) mentioned the smoke and mirrors that are involved in that, and it is true that financial and economic commentators like a surplus.
There are two sets of reasons for the surpluses—one good, and one bad. The good reasons reflect the healthy economy, delivered by nearly 20 years of Conservative economic reforms. Cutting tax rates and tax complexity and limiting regulation have been vital to the healthy and dynamic economy that underpins the Budget. In more fundamental terms, however, which the Government will not like, without the great trade union reforms, the great financial market liberalisations, the great privatisations and the dramatic reductions in tax rates under Conservative Governments, the Budget would not have been possible.
The bad reasons for the surpluses reflect the fact that we are simply being charged too much tax. Even the Government now admit that the burden of taxation has increased. We now pay between £25 billion and £35 billion in extra taxes. We must also take into account another £10 million—the cost of extra regulations—not to mention the ferocious complexity of the modern tax and benefits systems. The irony—the paradox—of the Budget is that it is slowly destroying the very things that made it possible.
Despite continually repeating economic platitudes about caution and prudence, the Chancellor and the Government have not learned the key concept of Conservative economic

arithmetic, which is straightforward enough: lower tax rates lead to higher growth rates; higher growth rates lead to higher tax takes; and higher tax takes allow tax cuts and spending increases—the story of 18 years of Conservative government. That virtuous cycle is the key concept behind Conservative economic policy.
The Government are gradually breaking that virtuous cycle for three reasons: first, their attitude to spending and their inability to manage it; secondly, their obsessive attitude to debt, which we have heard about today and with which I shall deal in a moment; and, thirdly, the high level of waste in government and the associated poor delivery of services.
I shall deal first with spending. Old Labour was characterised by feast, famine and overspending, followed by cuts when the Government ran out of money. The Chancellor knew that the financial markets would punish him for such behaviour. Indeed, his approach to the first few years has been dominated by the overwhelming desire to build up his reputation, at all costs, as cautions, careful and even prudent. He first ran up his war chest by overtaxing, and when he had a surplus he set out his pre-election bonanza. Old Labour represented feast then famine; new Labour represents famine then glut. That may have created the Chancellor's current reputation, but it is the worst possible way to manage public expenditure.
Starving the public sector of cash, followed by throwing money at it in panic will lead to waste and to the public sector failing to reach its targets. Runaway spending will fail to deliver the proper level of improved services. It will destabilise the public finances and, in the longer run, it will be unsustainable.
One of the Chancellor's strangest characteristics in his obsessive pursuit of prudence has been his obsession with public debt. Some of that obsession has been reflected in today's debate. The national debt in Britain is about a third of national income—half the European average—so it is not unmanageable; it is not even high by international standards. It is about half the level that is judged to be sustainable. We are not facing the situation that existed after the Napoleonic wars, when debt was three times as high as national income. We are not even facing the situation when debt was in the high 50s as a percentage of national income, which happened to be when the previous Labour Government were in power. The Chancellor, however, is saddled with Labour's history and reputation for economic incompetence, so, like a reformed alcoholic, he has to be a debt teetotaller and purchase Labour's economic credentials with taxpayers' money.
It is important to understand the purpose of national debt, which acts as a flywheel for the economy. When the economy slows, debt increases to allow the budget to meet increasing welfare payments without increasing taxes. When the economy is going well, debt should grow at a below-average level or a modest proportion should be paid down. Over the whole economic cycle, debt should stay roughly constant as a proportion of national income. The problem of paying down too much debt is that one has to raise too much tax to do it. The Government paid down £34 billion this year. In my judgment, it would have been smarter to have paid off about half that.
The Government's strategy is paradoxical. In the pursuit of their own reputation for financial prudence, they are damaging the financial standing of their citizens. The greatest single immediate effect of the last few years


of taxation and economic policy has been to drive the savings ratio down from 10 per cent. in 1997 to about 3 or 4 per cent. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central said that that was all the result of changes in economic confidence, but the numbers do not reflect that. There have been changes in economic confidence—up and down—in the past few years, but they have not been reflected in the rate of change in debt.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that debt and borrowing are, in fact, deferred taxation? The money has to be paid in any case, so in paying off a huge chunk of debt—for example, by the spectrum sale—we can save £2 billion of tax or avoid £2 billion of cuts in a given year without breaching the rules of the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. Those rules would be breached under his prescription.

Mr. Davis: I would not breach any of those rules, but I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point shortly.
By 1999, the reduction in personal savings was about £25 million and, by 2000, about £35 million. The increase in taxes is also about £25 million to £35 million, depending on when one measures it. Therefore, for every £1 increase in our tax burden at least £1 has come out of savings. The overall aggregate effect of the Chancellor's four-year strategy has been to transfer money from personal savings to the Treasury.
Instead of considering the issue in terms of billions of pounds, which is incomprehensible for most people, let us think of it in terms of the effect on the ordinary family. The level of national debt is about £15,000 per household. The Chancellor is expropriating more than a £1,000 a year from every household—money that would otherwise have gone into savings—and is using it to pay down Government debt, which is subject to the lowest possible rate in comparison with the return that a normal saver would get.
Before I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central, I wish to deal with a technical issue. The reduction in public debt might have a perverse effect that could lead to a shortage of gilts. The Chancellor might think—he almost said so in his speech last week—that the Myers report and the relaxation of the rules on investment solve the problem that that creates. Ironically, the reduced availability of very low-risk investments might, through the management of average risk, lead the financial institutions to cut their exposure to high-risk investments—precisely the opposite of the Chancellor's wishes. I have told the Financial Secretary that I shall write to him about that point, because the issue is too technical for this debate.
Debt reduction is being represented to the public as a virtue. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central, among others, has made that point. I can summarise his argument, because a Treasury press release does just that. It states:
We are now building a virtuous circle of falling debt, lower interest rates, lower debt repayments and a stronger economy, releasing more resources for public services.
That is the thrust of the argument, but it completely ignores the fact that the tax raised to pay down the debt has the effect of depressing the growth of the whole economy.
The destructive effect of high taxation on overall economic performance is now well understood, but appears to have been ignored by the Government. Studies based on Warwick university's economic model, by Robert Barro of Harvard university and by David B. Smith of Williams de Broe, whose work has recently been published by Politeia, show that a stark reduction in economic performance is related to increased spending and taxation.
The simplest way to understand that is to consider another model and another country. Through the late 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, the social democrat model in Sweden went along the route of increasing public expenditure faster than the economy's growth rate. In the 1960s and 1970s, Sweden was the third or fourth richest country in the world. Today, it is the 19th richest, and that is the direct consequence of higher taxation. The studies that I mentioned argue that, if it had maintained a sensible and Conservative policy, its private sector would be three times as large as it is today. Had Sweden gone the low-tax, high-growth route, not only would individuals have been richer, but its expenditure on public services would be much higher than it can conceivably afford today.
Politicians' classic error is that they love to be the distributors of largesse—the apparent benefactors of their fellow citizens. In the Chancellor, that vice has become an addiction. Social engineering is so detailed and complex that it is now social micro-engineering. He and other politicians ignore the fact that their complex and burdensome taxes and regulations destroy initiative; that their largesse brings millions more into dependency—2 million in the past three years—and that the destruction of savings and the savings culture undermines the primary instrument of self-help and independence, which is people's investment in their own family's future.
The greatest help if that we can give the poor is to provide better jobs and better choices and give them the right to keep more of their money. Those would all be better than the Chancellor's cold charity and would all be delivered by a vibrant low-tax economy. The Government's strategy is tax a lot, spend more than we can afford, pretend prudence by the unnecessary payment of debt and ignore the long-term consequences for growth.
The approach of Conservative Front Benchers is to promise £8 billion of tax cuts, based essentially on the reduction of waste and bureaucracy in government. They rightly intend to focus much of that benefit on cutting taxes on savings. The Government have rubbished that strategy, but I am not too worried by attacks from Treasury Ministers who cannot manage their own spending to within £5 billion and cannot forecast their surpluses to within £20 billion. Indeed, Treasury forecasting is so far off that I am beginning to believe that it is a deliberate attempt to persuade the world that tax cuts are not possible.
In reviewing Conservative policy, I considered the possibility of cutting waste and bureaucracy. The best study that I could find was by Mr. Tim Ambler, a senior research fellow at the London business school. It is due to be published later this year and draws on experience in Britain, New Zealand and elsewhere. It estimates that £30 billion a year could be saved. Although I do not accept all Mr. Ambler s arguments, I certainly believe that it is possible to achieve savings of £20 billion with no


adverse effects on public services and front-line spending. Indeed, it is possible to achieve that while improving public services.

Mr. Geraint Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way twice. He has painted a picture of a Labour strategy of excessive spending and taxation, but the statistics show that although we are spending more on health, education, crime prevention and so on, we are spending less on failure—on unemployment and debt. As a share of total GDP, total Government spend is marginally down because we do not have to service the same debt as the Conservatives. Tax, and borrowing as a share of GDP is also down. All aspects of policy are good, even according to the right hon. Gentleman's terms.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman assumes that the effects of the upturn of the economic cycle will always be available to the Government. Incidentally, he assumes that the effects of 20 years of Conservative reforms will always be available to a Government who follow a social democratic programme. That is not plausible. We are not just interested in the waste—as he rightly calls it—of people on unemployment benefit; w e are also concerned about the waste in government.
I did not intend to mention this, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised it and as he is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I should explain that the Treasury assesses that the PAC has saved £1.5 billion a year so far. Is he really saying that that cannot be multiplied 10 times over by a Government who are determined to do their job properly, because it certainly can? He should accept that before he makes any more fatuous comments.
In conclusion, there is great scope for increasing savings beyond the £8 billion proposed by Conservative Front Benchers. It might be possible to double that in the following year. In addition, the Government's shortfall in spending appears to be systemic at about £5 billion a year—sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. The result is that we are systematically paying £5 billion a year too much tax. In addition, we have the obsession with debt that I described earlier. It is not at all implausible that an incoming Conservative Government could, in their third year, consider tax cuts of some £20 billion, which would go some way to restoring the situation that existed when this Government came to power.
The simple fact is that the strategy that the Government have followed will not, in the long term, deliver economic success for this country. The Prime Minister likes to talk about preferring "what works". What works is freedom, as Conservative Governments have demonstrated over the years. We need freedom from excessive regulation, excessive taxation and excessive Government meddling. It is clear that the Government have not understood that message. I trust that the next Conservative Government will understand it and apply it with vigour.

Dr. Ian Gibson: I apologise for being absent for a couple of hours of the debate while I attended a Select Committee meeting and polished off a couple of related reports.
I pay my respects to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who has just left his place. He and I come from the same part of Scotland. He became a

magician and I kicked a football about. I have retained my accent, but he has slightly lost his—I do not know why. Our politics diverged very early in life and are very different now, but I pay credit to his hard work for his constituents, the county, his party and, indeed, his country. I look forward to working with his successor, who will undoubtedly—and, I hope, soon—be a Labour MP. The right hon. Gentleman and I will no doubt meet again on the A 1 1 dual carriageway, which the Government have now allowed to be developed. He will be glad that we finished the work that he started, although I note that it took a Labour Government to finish it off.
I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I want to concentrate on the growing confidence in Norfolk, especially in education, although it is reflected in other sectors. Norfolk county council is taking up Government initiatives. I pay tribute to the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, who have worked hard together to implement those initiatives, shown great entrepreneurial spirit and kept in touch with reality. I pay tribute also to Norfolk's outstanding director of education, Dr. Bryan Slater.
Norfolk local education authority is responding to the Government's agenda of high standards for all and dealing with the legacy of the laissez-faire, market forces approach of the Conservatives nationally and locally, which has directly led to under-performance in far too many schools and low standards for far too many children. Norfolk now has a rapidly improving standard across the board, and at key stage 2 the improvement in our pupils' performance over the past three years has been the highest of any of the shire counties.
Norfolk is achieving that by challenging and supporting its schools in the way expected by the Secretary of State, and by making the best possible use of increased Government funding and education initiatives. The extra funding for schools announced in the Budget will therefore be put to good use in Norfolk. It will add to the pump-priming money that Norfolk will receive as part of its capital service agreement with the Government, which it signed recently. Norfolk will deliver even better performances in its schools in return for up to £4 billion of extra funding, and will do so by using the new flexibilities provided by the Department for Education and Employment.
Norwich, part of which I represent, is the heart of the county. Over the years, it has had education problems, but six schools, including two high schools that were in special measures, have been restored to health in the past three years. Norwich still has problems with fast economic growth and with the increase in the number of pupils. That has created a difficulty for the LEA in finding school places.
The problem stems from planning consents given by Conservative-controlled district councils that do not require developers to contribute to what can often be small towns on the edge of conurbations. In my constituency there are two growth areas with many new houses, but no schools were built, which has created problems. It would make sense if, in the next Parliament, regulations were introduced to make developers' contributions to infrastructure a mandatory element of planning consent. I believe that the Secretary of State has some sympathy with that view.
It is opportune to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on the forward-looking initiatives announced in the recent Green Paper on education, "Schools: Building on Success". Much of the media attention has focused on the proposal significantly to increase the number of specialist schools. Norfolk has already embraced the idea of specialist schools and 10 have been set up in the past two years. Ten more are in the pipeline, and expansion of the specialist schools programme will be music to their ears.
The specialist schools in Norfolk's network are working together to improve standards for all children in all schools. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the ultimate logic that all secondary schools should develop a specialism, that those that might find it difficult to raise sponsorship funding should be given the financial help that they need, and that particular attention should be paid to the difficulties of schools in less-advantaged areas as well as those in sparsely populated rural areas where there is no large employer to call on as a sponsor. It would be a tragedy if a two-tier secondary school system were to result from the specialist schools programme. Experience in Norfolk to date shows that there is no reason why that should happen. I shall return to that point in a few minutes.
There are a number of other positive features to the Green Paper proposals. This country has lagged disastrously behind other developed countries for many years in its failure to develop a system of secondary schooling in which academic and vocational education are of equal worth. Of critical importance to providing appropriate provision for all individual learners is the development of a system in which individualised pathways, involving a mixture of academic, vocational and work-related activities, can be provided. The Green Paper proposals offer the first real hope for the development and implementation of such an approach in our schools since the abandonment of the technical and vocational education initiative in the early 1990s.
Equally, if used sensitively and in the interests of the individual learner, proposals to enable individual young people to progress at different rates will provide a further means of ensuring that not only the content but the pace of learning is more likely to be appropriate and therefore to continue to engage the individual learner in learning. Those two developments underline the importance of developing through the new Connexions service, comprehensive and effective guidance for young people as they progress through the secondary education system.
Equally welcome are the clear statements about the role of local education authorities—reformed education authorities, in the language of the Green Paper—in future. All the signs are that local authorities have recognised and acted on their duties to raise standards.
The Green Paper also makes strong statements about the need to ensure collaboration and mutual development across schools. The stated intention of the welcome proposal for expansion of the specialist schools programme—both in the number of schools and the range of specialism—is to drive collaboration and not competition. That feature of the Green Paper has attracted the most comment and criticism since its publication.
Many have argued that the need for schools to attract external sponsorship in order to make a bid for specialist status will result in a two-tier system of secondary schooling, in which schools in more affluent areas are able to achieve specialist status, while others are not. That point is worthy of some examination in the Norfolk context.
Norfolk has rapidly developed a network of specialist schools: six technology schools, two sports colleges, one arts school and one language school. It has done so exactly in the spirit of the Green Paper, by developing a geographical spread and a range of specialism with the explicit expectation that schools will share the developing expertise across the secondary sector. That approach has been adopted as an intentional counter to the clearly emerging two-tier perception of secondary schooling in parts of the county—most notably the urban areas. The accumulated effect over a number of years of previous legislation and its interaction with local circumstances has come dangerously close to producing sink schools in some areas. Happily, things have moved on, and none of the worst-affected schools are any longer subject to special measures.
That pattern can be properly reversed only over a period of time, with schools and the LEA working together in the shared belief that all schools can be good schools. We must remember that it is the education of every child that counts. I passionately hold to the view that it is not necessary to have endemically weak schools in order that the majority of children can receive a good education.
The opportunity further to expand the specialist school system in Norfolk in a collaborative framework is therefore welcome news. However, it is slightly galling that it comes only weeks after the Department for Education and Employment wrote to tell Norfolk that it was nearing its ceiling for the number of specialist schools that it could have. That position has been reversed, and that will come as great encouragement to the 10 schools that are bidding to join the existing 10 specialist schools, and to the entire secondary sector.

Mr. Willis: How does the hon. Gentleman square what he has just said with that fact—it is also in the Green Paper—that only four out of 10 schools in Norfolk will be allowed to be specialist schools under the new framework? All those schools can opt to select 10 per cent. of their students. Surely the art of selection will undermine the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman is so admirably presenting to the House.

Dr. Gibson: The way round the problem, as Norfolk education authority sees it, is to take forward the spirit that head teachers throughout the county have adopted for years. They have not split away and formed grant-maintained schools. Instead, they have worked together. They are determined to show that a specialism in one school does not mean that it is higher up a hierarchy than another school. That is the spirit of partnership that drives education forward. It is all right having a valuable sector in a school, but that does not reflect on the other sectors. Instead, it encourages them. I have worked in education establishments where there has been one really classy department. That stimulates other departments to think that they, too, can be classy. If we create that spirit, it will drive education forward. It is a scene that we have not experienced for many years.
It would have been even more welcome if the Green Paper had fully grasped the nettle and had given the green light for all secondary schools, over a period, to develop their own specialism within a collaborative network. Perhaps Norfolk should itself work towards such a position in partnership with secondary schools in the county. I know that the people that I have mentioned—the head of the education committee and the director—have that in mind and will be reflecting; that position over the years, given the increased money that the Government have given them.
It is important to recognise that Norfolk will need to continue to ensure that an appropriate balance is maintained between so-called competition and collaborative approaches as the specialist school programme develops. There is no magic blueprint. I think that a spirit of co-operation and a determination to drive standards forward will overcome many of the problems that we could perceive in perhaps a more intellectual environment.
A further tension lies within the Green Paper. Teachers will find it difficult to reconcile statements about greater freedom for schools with highly prescriptive statements about the organisation of schools and curriculum delivery elsewhere in the Green Paper. Were local education authorities to adopt some of the stances set out in the Green Paper, such as those in relation to the use of setting or curriculum delivery, it would he regarded by schools and Government alike as old-fashioned interventionism. The Green Paper therefore offers an insight into the Department for Education and Employment mindset. Much room remains for development of the trust that could enable the appropriate exercise of professional judgment at all levels within the education system, based on commonly held principles that are developed in partnership with Government, local government and schools. That should be not only allowed but encouraged.
Without doubt, the Green Paper envisages a period of rapid development in coming years in the secondary sector. It proposes a significant expansion of the specialist schools programme. It welcomes more faith-based schools and the continuing establishment of city academies, and proposes changing the law to allow external sponsors to take responsibility for under-performing schools against fixed-term contracts of five to seven years, with renewal subject to performance.
The drivers for change in the secondary sector have been apparent for some time. Put simply, changes are encroaching on secondary schools from both directions. Sustained and significant improvement in attainment at the end of primary schooling means that secondary schools must be much more able to provide continuity of experience for all children, as well as meeting the higher potential that is now being demonstrated for many.
A separate paper on the agenda considers the Government's proposals for reform of key stage 3 of the national curriculum. At the same time, key stage 4 is facing massive change. The Government's post-16 reforms are designed to ensure that in future the vast majority of young people, if not all, stay in some form of education after the age of 16. In order to achieve that, changes and reforms in key stage 4 will be vital to provide a wider variety of experience than at present. The long-overdue establishment of vocational GCSEs and workplace learning in key stage 4 will need to become realities within a short time.
There is much more in the Green Paper, but the vision set out in it will bring about improved performance, which is already being seen in secondary schools in Norfolk and across the country, and even higher standards and greater equality of opportunity. The Budget initiatives and investments being made in schools will add to that vision, and send our people on to higher education and a more fulfilling life.

Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). He has added to the scientific understanding of the House since he entered it, and I shall follow him primarily in speaking about an educational subject, though I hope that I shall be closer to the Budget and perhaps less close to the Green Paper. A year or so ago in the Chamber, I declared interests in higher education. I apologised for their egocentricity. They are in the Register of Members' Interests, and I do not propose to be egocentric again.
The febrile attitude in the popular prints suggests that an election is on the way. In that context, I take the liberty of quoting a famous passage from the Venerable Bede:
Such, O King, seems to me the present life of men on earth, in comparison with that time which to us is uncertain, as if when a winter's night you sit feasting with your ealdormen and thegns—
I am addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
a single sparrow should fly swiftly into the hall, and coming in at one door, instantly fly out through another. In that time in which it is indoors it is indeed not touched by the fury of the winter, but yet this smallest space of calmness being passed almost in a flash, from winter going into winter again, it is lost to your eyes. Somewhat like this appears the life of man".
In that quotation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you, of course, are the king, the Clerks at the Table are the ealdormen, and the Serjeant at Arms and his staff are the thegns. We, the Members of Parliament, are simply the sparrows who fly through the Chamber from one door to the other.
I made my maiden speech on the Monday night of the Budget debate in 1977 and, like various of my right hon. Friends and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), I am making what may be my final speech in the Chamber on the Monday night of the Budget debate in 2001. Those 24 years are exactly what the Venerable Bede had in mind in the quotation that I have just given.
As the poet said,
The Ancient of Days is an hour or two old".
Twenty-four years is a bagatelle in a rural seat. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who is also leaving the House, says that there have been five Members in East Devon in the past 130 years. Inner-city seats are a little different. Because of that, 24 years gives me the bronze medal in the City of London, which for most of the period since 1283 has had six Members of Parliament, and it gives me fourth place in Westminster, which has had two Members of Parliament since 1544 and Members of Parliament representing the same area since 1295. As fourth place gets one money in the grand national, I think that those are two reasonable places in the two seats.
I do not propose to spend what may be my final speech in the Chamber wandering down memory lane, save to make one confession and, from it, a single point. A year


or so ago, as I mentioned earlier, I indicated the intention to pursue in the House the issue of higher education in the latter part of this Parliament. That that was a reasonable intention is evidenced by the fact that in the Palace this very evening a meeting has been debating the future of higher education. That I have been prevented from doing so over the past months has been because my constituency office has become an outstation for the Home Office, to compensate for the latter's taciturnity and reticence towards my asylum-seeker constituents. Every Monday morning, I tidy up the asylum-seeker backlog from the previous week and, by Monday afternoon, the asylum-seeker constituency mail for Monday and the previous weekend has refilled the tray that I emptied in the morning. Although the correspondents have no votes, I do not begrudge the time I spend repairing the country's honour towards asylum seekers. Like all Tories, I recognise that, sadly, we live in an imperfect world.
My confession, as my prolegomenon may have made clear, relates to our universities, which have been a continuing interest of mine throughout my 24 years in the House. I spoke sympathetically about university pay in the Chamber in 1978 and thought it careless of the Association of University Teachers never to quote it against me when I was the higher education Minister five years later. My confession relates to that period. My Secretary of State was the late great Sir Keith Joseph, who was as sceptical about public expenditure—I use the old-fashioned term—as he was enthusiastic about freedom. My noble Friend Lord Lawson of Blaby, under whom I later served at the Treasury, was awash with oil revenues in the same way as the Chancellor is with mobile phone licence revenues. The universities, on the other hand, were imprisoned in a straitjacket of state planning. That meant that, in 1983, if a university sold an asset, it had to return the proceeds to the Treasury—a spectacular disincentive to entrepreneurialism, which we happily soon corrected, even if in two stages. It also meant that, even when we framed the rules on overseas student fees in sufficiently flexible language to encourage entrepreneurialism at all academic levels, universities tempted to try it feared that the University Grants Committee would penalise them. Thus Gulliver was held down by tiny but restrictive ropes.
My regret is that I did not even attempt to persuade the late great Sir Keith—who played a large and honourable part in changing the intellectual playing fields of British politics, on to which new Labour was finally obliged to follow us—to seek to persuade Lord Lawson to set free what were our then 45 universities with the encouragement of endowment if they were ready to be cast loose. Of course, I would not have insisted on their being cast loose. In the words of C.S. Lewis, if one hears of someone going round doing good to others,
you can always tell the others by their hunted look.
However, for those to whom freedom is important, there is no substitute for it. I seek to make amends for my juvenile silence in the mid-1980s by nailing my colours to the mast of freedom now that I have entered the final third of my first century, and as I leave this place.
The Chancellor has chosen to put the proceeds of the mobile phone licences towards repaying the national debt. I am aware of the attraction of that repayment for the Chancellor's place in history. Because I go back to

prehistory—that heady mixture of Rider Haggard's "She" and Sir Leonard Woolley's "Ur of the Chaldees"—I recall the level of the national debt in 1979. I did so during the lengthy speech of the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who made me recall an observation about Margot Asquith in the first world war. After she had visited the wounded in hospital, someone said of her:
Margot is so marvellous … She can make the deaf hear and the blind to see, and she would cause the dumb to speak if they could only get a word in edgeways.
I recall the level of the national debt in 1979, so I recognise why Government's base date for the national debt in this Parliament has always been 1990, rather than 1979, especially as international commentators warmly commended the previous Government's handling of the national debt during our full 18 years in government. Of course, the fact that the Chancellor has used the proceeds of licence fees for debt repayment, rather than true investment in our higher education by endowment, does not prevent the next Conservative Government from borrowing to set our universities free, without offending against the Chancellor's golden rule.
I pay the Chancellor tribute for championing genuine investment for 15 years, as against new Labour speak for revenue expenditure, unknown in the late Sir John Hicks's classic book on the national accounts. The Chancellor has championed genuine investment in training and higher education, for which I admire him all the more. Endowing universities would provide real investment, under whichever Government, and would set universities and the Chancellor free from the Laura Spence syndrome.
Under a planned system, an Oxford college—I declare an interest as a former undergraduate—is free to allocate places only in limited numbers and in particular subjects, determined by the system. Under a free system, Harvard—I declare an interest as a former postgraduate student there—is free to offer Laura Spence a scholarship, albeit in a different subject to the one that she sought to study at Oxford, because of the endowment funds that it has accumulated for that purpose.
I acknowledge the amount that the Government have put into higher education in the current year, and I do so unreservedly. I am happy that they have done so, but theirs is not the same aim as the one that I am espousing. When I was in the private sector, I gave up a day a year to sit at the feet of the futurologist Herman Kahn. One year, in the mid-1970s, he said that the United Kingdom's opportunities in post-industrial society would be in its three special centres of excellence: medicine, higher education and government. My ambition potentially embraces not just one of those centres of excellence, but even one and a hall.
When I was at the Treasury, we held the view that anything that could not be measured did not exist. That view was put to the test some years ago by the Foreign Office, which we all know and love. There was concern in the British embassy in Brussels that the doorway between the main spare bathroom and the main spare bedroom in the embassy would be insufficiently large to encompass the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin, who was, I acknowledge, a large man. A telegram was sent from Brussels to London, which stated:
Please verify diameter of Secretary of State.


A telegram came back from London, which demonstrated that those in the Foreign Office—for those of us who know and love it—are possibly more literate than numerate. It stated:
Unable verify diameter, but circumference is 60 inches.
Beyond measurement—and, therefore, infinite—is the potential of our universities, which respond to the spirit of the British genius. I hope that, as I leave this place, in this new century, our 90 British universities will blossom in the way they truly deserve to do.

Mrs. Betty Williams: Like those of several other Labour Members, my constituency has many attractions and advantages, but wealth is not one of them. The Budget is welcome news to my constituents. Also like many other Labour Members, I am looking forward to the results of the Chancellor's sound management of the economy further benefiting the economic and social fabric of our nation. The Chancellor's prudent management has placed the Exchequer in a position to respond to unexpected problems in ways that are not possible when a Government spend, day by day, to the limit of their resources.
The foot and mouth epidemic is such an unexpected problem, and is having a serious effect on the economy in my constituency. The news last week that it may continue for a long time was a blow to the many who, although affected by the epidemic, can do little or nothing to bring it to an end. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for acting so incisively and for reporting to the House so well. I also pay tribute to the National Assembly for Wales, not only for the personal commitment of its Minister for Rural Affairs, Mr. Carwyn Jones, but for the excellent foot and mouth disease information service that it has provided on the website, at www.wales.gov.uk. The Assembly has gathered information from several sources and the website is a great help in the Principality.
Compensation is available to farmers whose livestock is slaughtered, and I understand that other assistance may be available through the European Union under the EU agrimonetary compensation scheme. I am sure that that will be well received. However, the foot and mouth epidemic is having a much wider effect in my constituency. In Conwy, the landscape and the seashore are our livelihood in many ways, and the epidemic is having serious repercussions. Incomes are suffering and jobs are threatened in tourism, hotels, catering, countryside pursuits—including those of climbing instructors and mountain guides—shops and the haulage industry, to name but a few examples.
To seek some measure of the likely extent of the problem, I briefly examined "Digest of Welsh Local Area Statistics 2001". For an accurate assossment, I would need the services of a statistician, which most certainly I am not. My constituency contains parts of Conwy and Gwynedd and it is probable that the agriculture and tourism-related industries provide respectively 2,500 and 10,500 jobs in those counties. A substantial proportion of those 10,500 jobs may be under threat at present and the incomes of some of my constituents who are not involved in agriculture have already been reduced to nothing by the epidemic.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales are aware of my concerns. That, and the

fact that they and their colleagues are examining the consequences of the outbreak, was made clear in their answers to my questions on 8 March at columns 426 and 427, and on 7 March at column 277. I am grateful for that and for the agreement of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to meet my constituents on Wednesday.
The policy of slaughtering all affected animals is of long standing and I accept that it may be one of economic necessity. If so, we must give more serious and detailed consideration to the wider economic effects on constituencies such as Conwy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's stewardship has brought our economy to a state of unprecedented security, so I hope that a way may be found to assist my constituency and others where the epidemic is having a disproportionate effect on the local economy.
The Labour Government have brought many benefits to my constituents and to the nation, but they have done much more. International development and the relief of world poverty are examples. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). During her hectic day, I was delighted to introduce her to the university of Wales, Bangor. In particular, the work of the school of agricultural and forest sciences and the centre for arid zone studies was demonstrated and explained by staff, including the work being carried out under the Department for International Development plant science programme. My right hon. Friend's work on tackling world poverty, in which she co-operates with the Chancellor, is much appreciated by my constituents and I am proud that the university of Wales, Bangor, is playing its part in that mammoth task.
Sadly, towards the end of my right hon. Friend's visit, she was attacked by persons who are neither students of our university nor residents of my constituency. I feel that the House would wish to know that I have been sent many messages from my constituents expressing outrage at the treatment that my right hon. Friend received. I quote from a letter from Penrallt Baptist church, Bangor:
Our own Baptist forefathers fought hard and with great sacrifice on the side of free speech and democracy and we share the dismay you must feel. Although our church hosts a variety of different political viewpoints we are all united in our support for you in this matter and assure you of our prayers on your behalf.
To add to that moving message and the others that I have received, I wish to extend to the House my own sincere regrets and apologies.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I declare the interests recorded in the Register of Members' Interests.
First, I shall discuss the Budget framework. The Chancellor appears to have delivered a healthy Budget surplus, but we need to look behind that. Yet again, he has substantially undershot on the revenue side. Yet again, he has substantially undershot on departmental spending. He goes on about long-term stability and consistency, but he is consistent about one thing: he keeps undershooting his own underestimates.
Secondly, it is by now obvious to almost everyone that the golden rules that the Chancellor claims to have met so comfortably are not quite as golden as all that. This is fool's gold, or at the very least gold plate. One must ask


oneself, certainly after this year's outcome, whether these golden rules mean anything and whether they are any guide to the Chancellor's performance, so easily does he skip past them. Thirdly, as previous speakers have emphasised, the Chancellor has enjoyed the one-off proceeds of the mobile phone auction—some £22 billion to add to the revenue side.
The plain fact is that behind this year's healthy Government surplus, as defined by the Chancellor, spending goes on rising faster than the economy is growing. Even on his own forecast, he plans to borrow again in just two years' time. In the financial year beginning April 2003 he will borrow £10 billion, then £11 billion and £12 billion. That assumes continuous growth. If growth should slow or stop, all those figures will look suspect.
That must be why the Commission, in its assessment for the Council of Ministers, and the International Monetary Fund have warned of the consequences of the Chancellor's future tax and spending plans. The IMF warned of
negative consequences for investment and growth.
When I asked the Chancellor about that last Thursday, one of his junior Ministers said that I was misrepresenting the report. The IMF and the Commission warned that the Chancellor's tax and spending plans over the next three years may not be sustainable if growth turns down. If growth does turn down and he wants to go on increasing spending at the rate that he has been doing, we can be sure that taxes will rise again.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) told us graphically how taxes have already risen. In the last year of the Conservative Government, income tax receipts were some £69 billion, and this year they are £99 billion. I make that an increase of well over 40 per cent. Pension funds are paying £5 billion more in tax on dividends. Capital gains tax receipts have doubled from £1.2 billion to £3 billion. Inheritance tax is up from £1.5 billion to £2.3 billion. As my right hon. Friend said, 2.2 million more people currently pay tax than paid tax three years ago, and there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of people paying the higher tax rate. It would have been inconceivable before the war and in the period just after the war for so many people doing straightforward jobs to be classified as higher-rate taxpayers. Police sergeants in London, heads of department in schools and senior nursing officers are now classed as higher-rate taxpayers.
The result of all that is that total revenues—income tax, VAT, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and excise duties—are up by a third in three years to more than £250 billion. The tables in the Red Book finally and clearly reveal what the Chancellor has consistently tried to avoid disclosing in the past few years, which is that the tax burden is up from 35.2 per cent. of gross domestic product to 38.2 per cent.

Mr. David Ruffley: Is my hon. Friend aware that Credit Suisse First Boston has calculated that, after tax and inflation, average household disposable income under the Government has risen by

1.6 per cent. compared with 2.5 per cent. under the previous Conservative Administration, and 2.9 per cent. between 1979 and 1990?

Mr. Fallon: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point on the record so clearly. We hope to hear more from him later this evening, or in tomorrow's debate if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The facts on tax are now coming out. For so long the Chancellor and his colleagues first tried to deny that the tax burden was rising at all, then they claimed that it had risen but was planned to fall. Now, on the record in their own tables in the Red Book, we see that the tax burden has risen for the first three years. Whatever their plans are, we can be clear about what has actually happened: the tax burden has gone up. We are therefore entitled to ask where the money has gone and why it is not getting through.
It is interesting that today's debate, inaugurated by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, has concentrated on teacher shortages and the difficulty of recruiting teachers. Given the billions of extra revenue and the billions that the Government have boasted of giving to the education service, why have they failed to get enough teachers into our schools?
When I visited Swanley school in my constituency on Thursday morning, the head teacher had to excuse herself from our discussion. She had to go and teach English—not a shortage subject—because the school was unable to recruit enough English teachers. Why is there a shortage of hospital staff, despite all the tax revenue and all the billions that have been allocated? Why is the money not getting through to front-line services?
The money is clearly not getting through. As is plain from last year's Budget, the pre-Budget report and the Budget last week, the Chancellor keeps topping up a settlement that he said was comprehensive and fixed for three years. Departments, he said in 1998, should not come back for more: the settlement would allow them to plan for the next three years. But in each successive year—in each successive mini-Budget and Budget—the Chancellor has to top it up to try to ensure that the money gets through. Now he is saying that he will give money directly to schools each year—money that is clearly not getting through under the existing system.

Mr. Ruffley: I wonder whether my hon. Friend's experience in his Sevenoaks constituency is similar to mine in Bury St. Edmunds, where police numbers have fallen, there are waiting lists for the waiting lists at local hospitals—longer than they were in 1997—and secondary-school class sizes are larger as a result of the gerrymandering at the bottom end in primary-school class sizes.

Mr. Fallon: That is an excellent example of the way in which Government targets, schemes and policies have distorted allocations. Two things are happening. First, money is not getting through to the front line—to the area police commanders, the NHS trust chief executives and the head teachers. Secondly, when it does get through it is distorted by centrally fixed priorities that dictate to the people running local services how those services should be run from the point of view of Whitehall. Our hospitals


and schools are ending up as branch offices of the great Departments of State in Whitehall, doing the Secretary of State's bidding.
Something is wrong with the way in which the Government have been allocating their spending. That is proved by the fact that they keep coming back to announce further allocations in some desperate bid to get the money through before people notice at the general election.
So much for the framework; let me now turn to some of the specific decisions in the Budget. Of course, I welcome some of the Chancellor's measures for entrepreneurship. It is certainly refreshing to have a Chancellor who claims to believe in entrepreneurship: that is not something to which we have been accustomed in the case of previous Labour Chancellors. I welcome, for instance, the extension of the enterprise management incentive scheme, the changes in capital gains tax and the help for small businesses. As I hope the Financial Secretary agrees, however, it is important for those moves to be followed up.
On the one hand, the Treasury accepts the case for share ownership in binding employees more closely to their companies and encouraging company loyalty; on the other, it is not prepared to go further and cut the costs of share dealing in this country. If the Government firmly believe in share ownership, they should ask themselves why it is so much more expensive to deal in shares in the United Kingdom than it is elsewhere in Europe or in America.
The Chancellor's proposals on capital gains tax and small businesses raise similar issues. It is no use the Government exempting more small businesses further up the turnover scale from VAT when they are simultaneously piling on to those businesses more of the social red tape and other regulation to which we are becoming accustomed. If Ministers believe in exempting those businesses from VAT, why ate they also piling on extra regulation? The Government's entrepreneurship proposals need to be followed through much more consistently if we are to believe that there really has been a conversion in the Treasury to the cause of entrepreneurship.
The Chancellor's decisions can be characterised under four headings. First, there is far too much fiddling about with the provision of small tax credits here and there. The credits are all intended to deal with ostensibly worthwhile causes such as community investment, research and development and persuading people to build flats over shops. However, I warn the Treasury that there are always deadweight costs in introducing such incentives for people who may well have made those decisions regardless. There are certainly bureaucratic costs in processing all those applications and ensuring that they are dealt with. I also doubt whether, ultimately, such incentives change behaviour in the way that the Treasury hopes they will.
My favourite line in the Budget is the announcement that the Government will
remove VAT on the purchase of adult cycle helmets … to encourage people to cycle more".
All I can say to Treasury Ministers is that I doubt that people will suddenly abandon their motor cars—or that the commuters of Sevenoaks will suddenly leave their

Mercedes or Volvos at home and cycle down to Sevenoaks station—simply because VAT has been abolished on cycle helmets. That is not how people behave in the real world.

Mr. Ruffley: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the unacceptable face of the new Labour nanny state?

Mr. Fallon: That is an uncharitable view.
More fully, the sentence states that the Government will
remove VAT on the purchase of adult cycle helmets … to encourage people to cycle more and improve road safety".
The Government are therefore reducing VAT on cycle helmets to improve road safety. I do not quite follow that. Nevertheless, that sentence demonstrates all the overweening ambition and the futility of fiddling about with the tax system and thinking that, on 1 April, because a couple of pounds have come off the price of cycle helmets all the cars will be left at home and millions of people will be happily cycling to work. It really doesn't work like that.
The Chancellor's decisions can be criticised as quite clever packaging—like the "new and improved" formula that one sees in the shops. Not only has the decision on VAT on church repairs already been announced, it has already been blocked. Now, Ministers are trying to find a different way of producing the same money.
We have also already heard about the children's tax credit being increased to £10. The Government were consulting on that proposal and—surprise, surprise—people said that they were in favour of it. That change was reannounced again in the Budget statement. In his clever packaging, there were some measures that the Chancellor did not include. He did not remind us of the increase in national insurance contributions. Although that had been announced before, he did not trouble us by reannouncing it.
On Thursday, the Paymaster General was rather caught out and with some embarrassment had to explain to the House that Ministers had not provided hon. Members with the press notices with which we are usually provided and which explain some of the changes, including the one on the application of VAT to spectacles. Some of the notices were not even included in the Budget bundle. I think that the hon. Lady tried to convince the House that that was standard practice. It certainly has not been standard practice. In the old days, the Budget bundle included all the press notices and hon. Members did not have to ring up the Treasury or plug into the website to try to obtain more information.
My third criticism of the detail of the Budget is that there are, again, costs to business. Right hon. and hon. Members may be surprised to hear that, because the Budget was in general presented as one that cut taxes. However, maternity leave has been increased and paternity pay has been introduced. Even if the cost of those changes does not fall directly on business, it will do so indirectly. Business ultimately funds the changes through increased costs or it has to accommodate itself to the changes. That is particularly true of very small businesses which may have only three or four key people. Nevertheless, the Government tell them that they must provide so many weeks maternity leave and paternity leave. All those changes pile extra costs on business.
My fourth and final criticism is that the Budget perfectly demonstrates just how far the Chancellor has strayed from Treasury matters into all kinds of areas. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary has had time


yet to read the Treasury Committee's report on the role of the Treasury, which clearly shows that the Chancellor is involved in almost everything. He is involved in welfare policy—he is running the welfare system. He is involved in family policy. As we have just heard with regard to road safety, he is involved in transport policy. He is involved in education policy, in getting the money directly to the schools, helping to bypass the local education authorities. He is also involved in many other policies. Indeed, the Chief Secretary has become involved in something quite different. According to a Treasury press release, the right hon. Gentleman has announced an award for the most outstanding public building. So the Chancellor is also into architectural policy and has announced a new design award scheme. What does architecture have to do with the Treasury? The Chancellor simply cannot resist meddling in anything and everything—welfare, families, cycling and transport education and now public architecture.
The bigger issues are neglected. The Treasury has issued another consultative document to puzzle out why our productivity is still slipping behind that of our major competitors and why it seems that the gap between us and the United States cannot be bridged. There are issues at which the Treasury should be looking. For example, why do the Americans pay less tax but seem to work harder, for longer hours, and take fewer holidays? Why do our medium-sized companies find it so difficult to train and retain their work force?
After productivity comes the tax code. It is quite striking that commentator after commentator has gone on about the complexity of the tax code and the need for simplification. It is bad for individuals and complicated for business. Of course, I welcome the rewrite project and the work of those who are attempting tax simplification, but the structure is far too complex. It is time that the Treasury addressed these criticisms and came up with at least a commitment to taking an interest in simplifying the tax code.
In conclusion, this is not a very successful Budget. Taking the past four years as a whole, the Chancellor put up taxes quite massively for two years 'and then, in the past two years, reduced them slightly. As a result, taxes are much higher, but spending, as I have demonstrated, is no better. It is said that the Budget will benefit those with babies. It will certainly not take in those who were not born yesterday.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: This has been an interesting and quite prolonged debate. The opening speeches highlighted the contrast between the parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made an incisive, constructive speech which showed her free thinking, in complete contrast with the wooden, inflexible speech of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who has done so much to induce initiative fatigue in those of us who have to listen to him.
This was a unique day. We heard no fewer than four valedictory speeches from colleagues on the Opposition Benches—unfortunately only one of them is still in the Chamber. The first was made by my right hon. Friend the

Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who drew attention to the Government' s and the Chancellor's assault on middle England. He drew attention to the boom in tax raising and the bust in manufacturing.
In truth, the Chancellor has much for which to thank my right hon. Friend, who laid the foundations for the Budget. The tough decisions on which the Chancellor has based his Budget were taken in the Budgets of Lord Lamont and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon looks back at his career, I pay him the compliment of summing it up in this phrase: he made a difference and I pay tribute to him.
The second valedictory speech came from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, had his finger on the button. He rightly said that the Budget was patchy, with little bits for everybody, and that the increase in the tax burden was caused by fiscal drag. With his unique knowledge of the pensions industry, he drew attention to the problems with annuities.
The third valedictory speech was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), who incisively exposed the flaws in the Budget. He drew particular attention to the mess caused by IR35, giving an example that highlighted that problem.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Bowden (Mr. Davis) pointed out most effectively and clinically how the Budget and its predecessors were eroding Britain's competitive position.
The fourth valedictory speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who really is my friend. He and I soldiered through the proceedings of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 together, so I know what a support he can be for those less experienced than him.
My right hon. Friend pointed out that as the Member for the City of London, he would have won a bronze medal and as Member for Westminster he would have taken fourth place. In the affection of Members on the Conservative Benches today, he certainly takes first place. His speeches never fail to illuminate and lift whatever forum he chooses to speak in. To include the Venerable Bede, Margot Asquith and C.S. Lewis in one speech is unique and is unlikely to be heard again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) also made an incisive speech. He pointed out that in two years, the Government will be borrowing and that the IMF has noted the negative consequences of the Government's present monetary and fiscal stance.
What is most remarkable, however, is that although the Government have 417 seats in the House—a majority greater than the total number of Conservative seats—there were fewer Members on their Benches throughout the day than on the Opposition Benches. That shows how little interest Labour Members have in the serious consequences of the Budget that we are debating.
I shall deal with some of the wilder misrepresentations of Conservative tax and spending policies on education. The Chancellor announced an extra £1 billion for education over the next three years. He has used that technique before. Every year, he seems to produce a new three-year plan of some sort. A future Conservative Government will match that extra expenditure. However, somehow the inference has been made that that affects our projected tax and spend policies.
Before the Budget, the Chancellor had projected that public expenditure would be £442 billion in 2003–04, and we had set out how we intended to spend £8 billion less than that. After the Budget, the Chancellor still proposes to spend £442 billion in 2003–04, which includes the extra funding for education. We still intend to reduce that figure by £8 billion, but as none of that sum touches the education budget, we can match the Government's education proposals without affecting our overall policy.
The mystery, if there is one, is how the Government can spend an extra £1 billion In without increasing the spending total. In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead showed the manipulation in the figures and seriously brought into question whether an extra £1 billion existed at all. In fact, it looks more like an extra £200 million by 2003–04.
Our education policy would have fundamentally differed from that in the Budget in one way—our plan to endow the universities, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred. Before the Budget we had already announced that we would use the surpluses from future privatisations and spectrum sales to endow universities for the future. The universities will then invest the money and fund themselves through the income raised.
In the Budget, the Government propose to repay £32 billion of the national debt from the surpluses that they have accumulated during the past four years. In our judgment, much of that money could be better used to endow the universities, allowing them to receive substantial sums, which they could invest to fund themselves through the income. We will put our great universities on a standing with Stanford, Yale and Harvard, which revel in their independence.
Our policies will free the universities from excessive control and interference, allowing them to forge links with business and harness funding from the private sector without affecting their grant. They will decide the salary structures and how many students to take. That policy will remove the uncertainty about university funding, and it will be fiscally neutral.
That imaginative proposal stands in stark contrast to the Labour party's manifesto commitment in 1997, when it undertook to raise the proportion of national income spent on education. Under the previous Government, the average figure was 5 per cent.; under this Government it is 4.7 per cent.—another broken pledge.

Dr. Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman understand the difference between a permanent endowment fund and an endowment fund? Could he explain which fund would operate under the Conservative party's policy?

Mr. Ottaway: The fund will be perfectly straightforward; the money will he given as a grant to the universities, thus removing the need for the Government to give them their grant, which is why the policy will be fiscally neutral.
We acknowledge that the Budget's foundations were laid in the 1990s. We acknowledge the current stable, monetary position, the reasonable growth in the economy, low inflation and falling unemployment, but, as many hon. Members have said today, the growth in the economy started in 1993, when unemployment started to fall, as did inflation shortly thereafter. Yet despite the Chancellor's

achievement in not messing up the golden legacy that we handed him, the fall in unemployment is slowing down under this Labour Government. Between 1994 and 1997, unemployment fell by 27 per cent.; since 1997, it has fallen by only 24 per cent.
The Labour party said in its 1997 election manifesto that it would get 250,000 under-25-year-olds off benefit and into work, but according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, youth employment has risen by only 13,000 in the past two years. So it is clear that the new deal has been an expensive failure and one of the least effective job creation schemes in history. The next Conservative Government will replace the new deal with "Britain works", a scheme modelled on the highly successful "America works". It will save about £400 million of public expenditure and it has a greater likelihood of success.
Despite the relative stability of the economy, what the Chancellor is doing with it is alarming people across the length and breadth of the country. Whatever the Government's protestations and whatever phrase or spin they choose to put on the situation, there is absolutely no argument that the tax burden has risen under this Government. They may talk about a couple of pence off petrol or an increase in the children's tax credit, but the remorseless, indisputable truth is that, in 1997, the tax burden was 35.3 per cent. of gross domestic product and, today, it is 37.7 per cent. Britain is paying more; Labour has taxed by stealth.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only did the Government inherit a benign set of circumstances from the previous Government, but they inherited a benign set of world economic circumstances, particularly in north America? North America still has a very much lower tax burden as a percentage of GDP than the Government are currently imposing. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to become competitive in world terms, we still need to have a lower tax burden?

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I intend to deal with the position of the United States shortly.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: No, I am sorry, but time is against me.
The Government have invented 45 stealth taxes on everything from holidays to pensions. If people are married, smoke, drink or drive a car, they feel it in their pockets. The irony is that those taxes are being introduced by, of all things, a Labour Government. They are regressive taxes, hitting those on the lowest incomes and hitting worst of all in the Labour party's heartlands.
With the election imminent, those of us who have been on doorstep know what the public are saying. There is a sense of unease about what the Government have done. Labour voters from 1997 have their doubts and Millbank spin doctors warn us of apathy among the voters. It is not apathy; it is dissatisfaction among the very people whom Labour were voted in to look after.
The Government's tax increases since 1997 add up to £25 billion a year, equal to lop on income tax. A typical working family is £670 a year worse off under Labour.


However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk pointed out, the cruellest tax of all is the stealth tax on our pension funds. We all know that the price of cigarettes has gone up, but millions are unaware of how their pension fund has been eroded. Unless, one puts in hundreds of pounds extra a year into a pension, one will be much poorer in retirement than planned.
In a cynical step, with the election weeks away, the Chancellor has started to give a fraction of that money back. He has widened the lop tax band; he is going to give people an extra 69p a week. That, on top of last year's 75p increase to pensioners, illustrates that the Government have lost all sense of relativities. All that they are doing is earning the anger of the British people.
However, while the Chancellor is trumpeting his tax cuts, as in most of his Budgets, reading the small print reveals much more. The rises in national insurance contributions mean that 2.5 million taxpayers will be worse off; the climate change levy will start to clobber business; the increase in company car tax continues the right hon. Gentleman's relentless assault on the motorist; and the aggregates tax will hit the cost of construction.
However, it gets worse. Deep in the small print of the Red Book, it is revealed that the increase in corporation tax this year will be more than £5 billion. The Chancellor may have trumpeted a modest reduction in the headline rate of corporation tax but, since he came into office in 1997, he has not adjusted the threshold at all. Furthermore, he has left IR35 untouched. No wonder business feels unfairly treated.
However, most contemptible is the imposition of VAT on spectacles. It will particularly hit the poor and the elderly. Just what do the Government think they are doing? The elderly in our society are the most vulnerable. That is why we will cut taxes for the over-65s, eliminate tax on savings and substantially increase the age-related allowance, which will take 1 million pensioners out of the tax system altogether.
What a contrast with the fiddly changes to the rules on individual savings accounts and personal equity plans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said, those changes illustrate the central features of any of the Chancellor's Budgets—the complexity and dramatic extension of means-testing and the use of tax credits reflect his tinkering, meddling, fiddling, interfering, intruding, prying, snooping and tampering. All that from a Chancellor who, in 1994, told the Labour party conference that he would eliminate means-testing from the benefits system.
To qualify for the tax credits, people must fill in extensive forms, so they do not bother. It comes as no surprise that millions of people who are entitled to receive the children's tax credit probably do not know about that. The Inland Revenue does not know where the children are—it does not keep such records. The anomaly of the children's tax credit remains. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said, why should two earners who are both on £35,000 a year—a household total of £70,000 a year—receive the children's tax credit when a single earner on £45,000 does not. In last year's Finance Bill, the Minister said that he was looking into the matter. I suggest that he gets another pair of spectacles—if he can afford the VAT.
We recognise the need to maintain spending on schools, but that does not me in that savings cannot be made. A future Conservative Government will take the growth in the economy and increase expenditure on public services while letting people benefit from the reduction in taxes. We are proud to campaign for tax cuts of £8 billion, which the nation can afford and which it wants. That highlights the philosophical divide between the parties. Conservatives believe that people who work hard and make an honest living should be entitled to keep as much of their money as they can and spend it in the way that they wish. We will cat taxes because we believe that people know better how to spend their own money. The Budget fails to recognise that fundamental truism.
The Budget is complacent. Although the Government predict a deficit in two years' time, they plan to increase public spending at an unsustainable level. The world outlook is not that rosy. Japan's economy has stalled and the alarm bells are ringing in the United States of America, but the Chancellor claims to have eliminated boom and bust, as if it were in his gift to do so. If the American economy turns down, the surpluses of which he is so proud will disappear in the mist. The Government will face the stark and unenviable choice of cutting expenditure or increasing taxes. That sounds like boom and bust to me, and they know it.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The fundamentals of our economy are stronger today than they have been for a generation. The centrepiece of our economic strategy—the establishment of a new stability in the economy—was set out before the last election, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) reminded the House. The new macro-economic policy framework, with interest rates decided independently by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and the rules of fiscal prudence, was needed to establish a new stability in the economy after decades of instability, compared with the record of our competitors. Having achieved that, we see it as a precious prize indeed. So maintaining it and locking it in for the long term was at the heart of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's objectives last week.
We are enjoying clear benefits from that approach. More people are in work than ever before. The unemployment rate is at its lowest for 25 years. Of particular importance is the dramatic fall in youth unemployment. The number of young people aged 18 to 24 who are unemployed for six months or more—the group targeted by the extremely successful new deal for young people—has fallen by more than 75 per cent. since 1997. Everyone can appreciate the huge benefit to us all of so many young people becoming familiar with the habits and disciplines of having a job, especially when such a large number of them grew up in households in which no one regularly went to work. Opposition Members referred to the evaluation carried out by the Institute for Social and Economic Research. Its conclusion is that the new deal for young people will have cost £150 million a year over this Parliament and will have increased national income by £500 million a year, such is the scale of its success.
Interest rates are low and stable. We have the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years, and unprecedentedly high rates of business investment—over 14 per cent.


of GDP. Inflation is on target, and has been lower for longer than at any time in the past 30 years. It is the lowest in the European Union. National debt has sharply decreased. The fall in debt charges, which some Conservative Members have questioned in the debate, has alone freed up £7 billion for next year, compared with four years ago. The fall in spending on unemployment benefit has freed up about £4 billion. That is why we can now plan with confidence for substantial increases in investment over the next three years in education, science, transport and health—the priorities on which our future prosperity will depend.
I shall respond to points made in the debate and set out the approach on productivity that we have taken in the Budget. There is still a substantial productivity gap between the UK and our leading competitors. The most recent data suggest that there has recently been significant improvement, with manufacturing productivity up by 4.4 per cent. in the past year, but we still have a long way to go to catch up on past failure, and we are determined that we should do so.
There are five key drivers of productivity growth on which we need to make progress: investment, skills, innovation, enterprise and competition. I shall outline how the Budget addressed each of those. On investment, we want to maximise the contribution of institutional investors to boost productivity. Following an investigation by Paul Myners of Gartmore Investment Managers, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor List week accepted his recommendations, which included making it easier for institutions to participate in venture capital investment. We want it to be worth people's while to move from a secure job in a large firm to a fast-growing start-up, so we are extending the enterprise management incentive, which has been welcomed in the debate. In future, tax-advantaged share options in small firms can be extended to as many employees as the company chooses, up to £3 million in total for all the options. We want a new regional dynamism to boost the economy, so we are introducing new flexibility to how the regional development agencies can use their budgets.
On skills, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced earlier in the debate our measures to improve recruitment and retention of teachers. We also want higher investment in work force training throughout the economy, and we are prepared to consider a tax credit for it. We need businesses and others to take complementary steps in response. Sir Gareth Roberts, the former vice-chancellor at Sheffield university who has just moved to Wolfson college, Oxford, will conduct a study of the supply of highly skilled scientists and engineers, focusing on those skills areas where shortages are most acute.
There is a great interest in sectors facing shortages in recruiting people who are currently out of the work force altogether: young people, lone parents, returners and early retirers. We will develop intensive. sector-based welfareto-work strategies in skill shortage areas such as retail, construction, financial services and information technology.

Mr. Bercow: The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), is on the record as saying in a written answer on 11 December:
The number of people leaving a profession may be taken as an indicator of morale."—[Official Repot, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 65W.]

Is not the Financial Secretary therefore able to recognise that there is an obvious link between the massive explosion of circulars, glossy publications and consultation documents that have spewed forth from the DFEE over the past four years on the one hand, and the number of people leaving the teaching profession on the other?

Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman, who I know has been present for most of the debate, will have heard several hon. Members recording their constituency experiences of the very high morale in schools throughout the country, which reflects the huge improvement in investment in our schools in recent years. He will have heard also about the substantial increase in the number of people applying for teacher training and about the measures that we will take over the next 18 months before those people go into employment in schools.
As the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said in his winding-up speech, the debate has been marked by—possibly—the last speeches of three distinguished former Conservative Cabinet Ministers, all of them, as it happens, former Treasury Ministers, and by that of a very distinguished Conservative Back Bencher as well. I want to run through the points made by all who spoke and say something about their remarks.
In a thoughtful and commendably succinct speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) drew attention to and welcomed in particular, among other features of the Budget, the special grant for museums, to repay their VAT and to help them offer free admission, which we very much welcome.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in a dignified speech which he said might well be his last in the House of Commons, spoke with great feeling of the privilege of being a Member of the mother of Parliaments. He described my right hon. Friend as "this most prudent of Chancellors", paying him a number of compliments as well as levelling some criticism. The right hon. Gentleman commented on tax as a proportion of gross domestic product. It is worth making the point that it is less than it would have been on the previous Government's projections when the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister.
As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) rightly said, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon struck a very different tone from the current leader of the Conservative party in Harrogate. The right hon. Gentleman explained that he would be unable to be present for the close of the debate, but he will take with him when he leaves the House the good wishes of all hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) raised his interest in further education. The Minister responsible, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), was on the Government Front Bench when he spoke and heard his remarks with particular interest. My hon. Friend also welcomed the support for research and development announced in the Budget, and the consultation on the new tax credit for large firms. That will be of particular interest to firms such as Rolls-Royce in his area.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough supported moves in the Budget to reduce child poverty and made a number of points about education. My hon.


Friend the Member for Bury, South was right to point out, however, that representatives of the Liberal Democrat party have a tendency to make endless demands without ever telling us how they would pay for them. My hon. Friend also made an important point supporting the new partnerships encouraged and gathered by regional development agencies.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), another former Conservative Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in what he said would be his last speech in a Budget debate, paid some slightly back-handed compliments to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's stewardship of the economy. He said that the fuel escalator was abolished in response to the fuel protests in September. Of course, that was not so. The abolition of the fuel escalator was announced in the pre-Budget report in 1999, well before those protests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) was one of those who passed on to the House the welcome of head teachers in his constituency for the additional sums that are being provided directly to their schools following the announcements last week. That is one of the factors that has improved morale in schools up and down the country.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), in what I think he said would be his last speech after 31 years in the House—he is the longest-serving of those who spoke in this debate before retirement—said that, although he welcomed the research and development tax credit for large firms, he was concerned about small and medium-sized enterprises. I can tell him that we introduced in last year's Budget precisely what he wanted—a tax credit for small and medium-sized enterprises which has been widely welcomed and in place for the past year. He also asked about support for the cost of child care at home. I refer him to paragraph 4.17 in the Red Book, where that point is directly picked up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), in a highly economical, perceptive and well-informed speech, said that the key to the Government's success was the 1.1 million extra jobs that have been created. He made the telling point that the proportion of tax as a percentage of gross domestic product needs to be considered alongside the unsustainable borrowing that was taking place in 1997.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) showed his strong commitment to improving education in Norfolk. He welcomed the impact of the Green Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) spoke effectively of the repercussions of foot and mouth disease through the local economy in the area she represents, and welcomed the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development.
I regret that I do not have time to comment on some other interesting speeches, including that made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). There was also the—possibly—retirement speech of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), another former distinguished Treasury Minister.
The greater prosperity that we are working for and taking forward in the Budget depends on public investment. We could not seriously aim for greater

prosperity if we continued in the old way of under-investing in our schools. We could not seriously aim for greater prosperity if we carried on in the old way and failed to invest in science. We could not do so if we carried on in the old way and failed to invest in transport. Investment, and public investment, are the essential prerequisites for prosperity in a modern economy.
What do the Tories offer us? They long to make cuts, but they know that the country has had enough of under-investment and crumbling services. They long to wield the axe, but they know that only a minority would support them. Instead of a frank commitment to cuts in services, we have an extraordinary list of fudges, exaggerations and naiveties, to which the hon. Member for Croydon, South referred, and which they claim would amount to £8 billion in savings.
Let us be charitable and pretend that £8 billion in two years would be enough to make the Conservatives' Budget arithmetic add up. It would not, of course, but let that pass. Let us consider the list on its own terms. Even on the most charitable interpretation, the list crumbles into dust when it is exposed even to cursory examination. It simply does not stack up.
It is well known, tot example, that there are no regional assemblies in England, yet the Tory list claims that £205 million will be saved by abolishing them. They are not there to abolish. We have been told this evening that the Conservatives would use the £34 billion debt repayment this year—it has already been made, but presumably they would borrow it again—to establish an endowment for universities. That opens up an additional hole of £2 billion that needs to be plugged by other measures that have not been specified. At point after point, the entries on the list cannot sustain even more than the most cursory scrutiny.
I am particularly interested by the claim that housing benefit reorganisation would yield nearly £450 million in savings. The Conservative party has experience of housing benefit reorganisation. The Conservative Government reorganised it twice in the 1980s, and made a hash of it on both occasions. The figure that the Conservatives have come up with is completely fictitious. They count savings from taking away housing benefit from some local authorities, but forget to add in the extra costs that the Benefits Agency would incur in taking on the additional work. It is all like that.
It is a curious fact that in the 1985 public spending White Paper, the Tories spelled out how much they thought they would save by housing benefit reorganisation. Yes, the sum was £450 million, but the saving never materialised. It was groundless then, and it is completely bogus now. As I have said, the numbers do not stack up.
Our numbers do stack up. We said before the election that stability was the key to success in managing the economy, and stability is what we have delivered. It presents us with our best economic opportunity in a generation, and all of us should wish to seize it.
It is being recognised increasingly that the United Kingdom is an attractive place for setting up a business. A few weeks ago, Arthur Andersen and Growthplus released their first annual pan-European benchmarking study on—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put ,Forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour— [Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 134.

Division No. 143]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Denham, Rt Hon John


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dismore, Andrew


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dobbin, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H


Atkins, Charlotte
Dowd, Jim


Austin, John
Drew, David


Bailey, Adrian
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bayley, Hugh
Efford, Clive


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Ennis, Jeff


Begg, Miss Anne
Etherington, Bill


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bennett, Andrew F
Fisher, Mark


Benton, Joe
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Berry, Roger
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Best, Harold
Flint, Caroline


Blackman, Liz
Flynn, Paul


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fyfe, Maria


Bradshaw, Ben
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gardiner, Barry


Browne, Desmond
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Gerrard, Neil


Burgon, Colin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Godsiff, Roger


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Goggins, Paul


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Grocott, Bruce


Casale, Roger
Hain, Peter


Caton, Martin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cawsey, Ian
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clapham, Michael
Healey, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)



Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clelland, David
Hoey, kate


Clwyd, Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Coleman, Iain
Hope, Phil


Colman, Tony
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cooper, Yvette
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Dr Kim


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cox, Tom
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cranston, Ross
Hurst, Alan


Crausby, David
Hutton, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Idon, Dr Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'tryS)
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian





Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rammell, Bill


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Raynsford, Nick


Joyce, Eric
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Keeble, Ms Sally



Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rogers, Allan


Kemp, Fraser
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kidney, David
Rowlands, Ted


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roy, Frank


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ruane, Chris


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ruddock, Joan


Lammy, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Leslie, Christopher
Ryan, Ms Joan


Levitt, Tom
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Savidge Malcolm


Lock, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McCabe, Steve
Skinner, Dennis


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)



Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Macdonald, Calum



McDonnell, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McFall, John
Smith, Liew (Blalenu Gwent)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Snape, Peter


McIsaac, Shona



Mackinlay, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McNulty, Tony
Southworth, Ms Helen


MacShane, Denis
Spellar, John


Mactaggart, Fiona
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWater, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McWilliam, John
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Maxton, John
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meale Alan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Merron, Gillian



Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Michie, Bill (Shefl'd Heeley)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Timms, Stephen


Morley, Elliot
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Todd, Mark



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Mudie, George
Tynan, Bill


Mullin, Chris
Walley, Ms Joan


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Ward, Ms Claire


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Watts, David


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
White, Brian


O'Hara, Eddie
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Olner, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Organ, Mrs Diana



Perham, Ms Linda
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pike, Peter L
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Plaskitt, James
Winnick, David


Pond, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Pope, Greg
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Pound, Stephen
Wyatt, Derek


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Mr. Ian Pearson and


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Clive Betts.






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lansley, Andrew


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Letwin, Oliver


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lindington, David


Baldry, Tony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Ballard, Jackie
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bercow, John
Luff, Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Blunt, Crispin
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Body, Sir Richard
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Boswell, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Madel, Sir David


Brady, Graham
Malins, Humfrey


Brazier, Julian
Maples, John


Breed, Colin
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
May, Mrs Theresa


Browning, Mrs Angela
Moss, Malcolm


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Nicholls, Patrick


Burns, Simon
Norman, Archie


Butterfill, John
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Ottaway, Richard



Page, Richard


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Paice, James



Paterson, Owen


Chope, Christopher
Prior, David


Clappison, James
Randall, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Rendel, David


Collins, Tim
Robathan, Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Cotter, Brian
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Cran, James
Ruffley, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
St Aubyn, Nick


Day, Stephen
Sanders, Adrian


Duncan, Alan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Duncan Smith, Iain
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Evans, Nigel
Shepherd, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fallen, Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fearn, Ronnie
Spicer, Sir Michael


Flight, Howard
Spring, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fraser, Christopher
Steen, Anthony


Garnier, Edward
Streeter, Gary


Gibb, Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Syms, Robert


Gorrie, Donald
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gray, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Green, Damian
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Grieve, Dominic
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Townend, John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tredinnick, David


Hammond, Philip
Trend, Michael


Harvey, Nick
Walter, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Waterson, Nigel


Hayes, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Heald, Oliver
Whittingdale, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Willetts, David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Willis, Phil


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Wilshire, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Jenkin, Bernard



Keetch, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Mr. Eric Forth and


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Mr. Gerald Howarth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we debate the Leader of the House's motion on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, will you tell the House whether there is any precedent for the Government moving a motion that consideration in Committee of any Bill be deemed to be completed when it clearly has not? The point is simple. There will be arguments later about what happened, but it seems to me to be wrong for Parliament ever to cut any part of proceedings on a Bill and not to return to the stage at which proceedings were disrupted. Will you rule on whether it is out of order for the Government to seek to cut a whole stage of the parliamentary process on the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: There is no precedent, but we have a motion covering that matter before us. Therefore, it is not for me to say that the Government are out of order.

Mr. Stephen Day: That is up to the Lobby fodder over there.

Mr. Speaker: Older. The Government are in proper order; if it were otherwise, I would say so.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you please advise the Houle whether it would be possible for the Government to table a motion recommitting the Bill to the Committee and giving the Committee sufficient time for proper debate?

Mr. Speaker: That matter is hypothetical. We are dealing with the motion before the House, which has been tabled by the Government, and an amendment, which has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Alan Duncan: And others.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, the motion has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats; others have added their names to it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen more often—he might learn something. Before I was interrupted, I was telling the House, and I might tell him, that I have accepted the amendment in the name of the Liberal Demcrats.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move,
That, following the Report of the Chairman of Standing Committee F on 9th March, the Criminal Justice and Police Bill shall be deemed to have been reported to the House, as amended by the Committee, and as if those Clauses and Schedules the consideration of which had not been completed by the Committee had been ordered to star d part of the Bill, with the outstanding Amendments which stood on the Order paper in the name of Mr. Charles Clarke.
I begin by saying how really delighted I am to see the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) here for the whole debate. Earlier, she notified the Whips Office that she would have to miss the first half because of the annual general meeting of her


Conservative association in Maidstone, which will presumably call on her to justify her behaviour last Thursday to Conservative party members.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: rose—

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose—

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way at this stage.
This afternoon, the right hon. Lady and I had a very frank exchange outside the Chamber after Question Time. I am very glad that she has considered further counsel and is with us for the whole debate. I welcome her.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: Later, but not at this stage.
I believe that the debate is about judgment—three different judgments. The first is the Government's judgment in allocating time to the Bill. The Opposition claim that we did not allocate enough. The second is the judgment of the Conservative party in determining its approach to the Bill. The third is the judgment of the right hon. Lady in deciding to flout the rules of the House and the authority of the Chair. I shall discuss those three judgments in order.

Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Minister. Can he explain to the House why he said that he could
confirm that the Government will be tabling a motion on Monday to the effect that has been indicated"—[Official Report, 9 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 527]—
which is this motion? He told the House on Friday that the motion would be tabled today and then slipped it in surreptitiously on Friday. Why did he change his mind?

Mr. Clarke: There was no change. That matter was dealt with at points of order immediately after Question Time this afternoon and I have nothing to add.

Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister says that this matter was dealt with at points of order after questions, but what he said on Friday was not dealt with by you. You have made it clear that you are not responsible for what the Minister said on Friday. What is perfectly clear from Hansard and from the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for the Minister's reply. Opposition Members have a chance to rebut what the Minister states tonight. That is known as debate. The Minister is involved in the debate, and the hon. Member or his Front-Bench colleagues can rebut the case that he puts.

Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am keen to debate fully all three judgments. First, on the judgment about the time allocated for consideration of the Bill, in the light of some of the examples that have been given I want to give just one example to which the Opposition should give good consideration. The Police Act 1997, which was passed in the pre-election 1996–97 Session, had 138 clauses and 10 schedules on enactment. It was

considered for a total of eight sittings, compared with the number of sittings for this Bill under this Government. The House should bear that in mind when considering the crocodile tears that are being wept by some Opposition Members.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, not at this stage.
Our overall approach to this matter was clear. First, we wanted to co-operate with the Opposition on the issues developed, as I and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), have on previous Bills such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and the Terrorism Bill. Secondly, we wanted to be out of Committee by 8 March. Thirdly, following Second Reading we initially proposed 16 sittings, equivalent to 36 hours, and said that we were prepared to put in more time and sittings. Fourthly, we made it clear that it was up to the Opposition to choose the subjects that they wanted to spend time debating. That was the basis on which we went to the first Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.

Mr. James Gray: There were 14.

Mr. Clarke: As is being shouted out, the resolution proposed for 16 sittings, not 14. That followed a personal commitment by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who believed that his unavoidable absence had been accepted by his opposite number in the usual channels. For that reason, I made it clear at the Programming Sub-Committee that we would allocate time at least to make up the missing four hours, and more if necessary, to debate the subject of the Bill.
The Opposition were not interested in the time. They were interested only in the end date of 13 March, when the Bill would come out of Committee—an extra five hours on the original proposal in the resolution that we submitted. That was their only concern, not time.
I believe that that dispute—it was a sharply held dispute through the whole process—originated from Conservative inflexibility for reasons that I shall explain later. It poisoned the work of the Committee. As a result of that inflexibility, the Opposition usual channels were not prepared to come to agreements unless the Government agreed to change the end date to 13 March, as originally proposed by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).

Mr. Gray: Does the Minister accept that what happens between the usual channels is not a matter for debate in this Chamber? I for one do not intend to enter into discussion about what the Government usual channels and I discussed. That is a private matter for the usual channels, and he should not be raising it from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman spent 20 minutes speaking in Committee as a Whip. As these issues were fully debated in Committee, when I said exactly what I have said now in this Chamber, his argument has no substance.
The Opposition's argument was not about increasing the time for debate, but about their ambition to change the end date. We made offers that were not accepted. We offered to meet on the afternoon and evening of Budget day on Wednesday 7 March, but they said no because they would not come to any understandings. We also offered to sit longer on other occasions, but none of those offers was accepted.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment, when I have gone through the facts on time, so that the hon. Gentleman knows where we are.
We originally committed to 16 sittings: a total of 36 hours. The programme motion that we tabled began with 14 sittings: that is, 32 hours. We agreed six extra extensions during that period: 30 minutes on 6 February, 30 minutes on 13 February, an hour on 27 February, an hour and a half on 6 March, two and a half hours on 7 March and two hours on 8 March. That represents a total of eight hours in addition to the 32 that we originally proposed. We allocated 40 hours to the Committee stage, equivalent to 17 or 18 sittings.
The House may wish to consider the amount of time that the Committee spent on procedural discussions of that very point.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: Not at this stage.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: Yes.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend will have noted that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) sought to intervene earlier. I wonder whether, before he is given an opportunity to do so, my hon. Friend will ask him why he has not been allowed to speak for the Opposition in this debate.

Mr. Clarke: The way in which the Opposition have allocated opportunities to speak is certainly very interesting.

Mr. James Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that another has tried to intervene when he has not?

Mr. Clarke: Let me be candid, Mr. Speaker. We decided that the Ministers who were on the Committee should open and close the debate. I find it extraordinary that neither Opposition spokesman is prepared to speak openly tonight, but that is a matter for them.

Mr. Heald: In fact, I am the Member for North-East Hertfordshire.
The Minister knows that, in the Sub-Committee, we pressed for extra time to be provided and for the end date to be put back to 13 March because we knew that consideration could not be completed in the time that he was allowing. Does he agree that on the Wednesday afternoon, which he mentioned, we moved a motion that would have allowed us to sit all night if necessary in order to complete consideration, and have 13 March as the end date? We did that because we did not want to deprive the real victims of the guillotine—the organisations and individuals who wanted their case to be put—of the chance to have that case put.

Mr. Clarke: That is remarkable. The amendment that the hon. Gentleman tabled at that first Programming Sub-Committee sitting would have given us 37 hours of debate. In fact, we had 40 hours. Beyond that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House. I cannot hear the Minister. He is entitled to a proper hearing, and he is not getting one.

Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to lower my voice, in order not to drown out the voices of others.
What I was seeking to add to my point about the allocation of time, which was that we had given more time than had been requested by the Opposition, was that two and a half hours—equivalent to a whole sitting—had been occupied by debate of procedural matters. In the first sitting on 6 February, the time occupied was 30 minutes; in the ninth sitting on 1 March it was 40 minutes; in the 13th sitting on 7 Marc h it was an hour; in the 15th sitting on 8 March, we witnessed the notorious events led by the shadow Home Secretary and potential leader of the Opposition following the election, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who sought to disrupt the Committee with a sit-in. On a series of other occasions, the Opposition deliberately sought to waste time.

Mr. Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No. I want to continue my speech.
Let me give some specific examples. When we were discussing clause 2, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)—I cannot see him, but he may be present—devoted half his speeches to reading out evidence from the Criminal Bar Association. We had "interpretation" debates about the meaning of "police" and about British islands; we had ridiculous and misleading information about early-day motions on animal rights.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Betcow) must behave himself.

Mr. Clarke: Therefore, on the first judgment—allocation of time—I believe that the Government more than fulfilled their commitment on 16 sittings. We gave more time than the Opposition requested and ample time to discuss the issues.

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to challenge the ruling of the


Standing Committee Chairman, who, in the sixth sitting—which was long after the events that the Minister described—ruled:
My view, and that"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. The Chairman is perfectly capable of looking after the Standing Committee.

Mr. Clarke: I therefore believe that on the first judgment the Government fulfilled their pledges and that there was ample time to discuss the issues.
I come to the second judgment—the Opposition's judgment—

Mr. Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No. I have made it clear that I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way. It is no good for the Speaker to have to keep interrupting proceedings. I appeal to the House to come to order.

Mr. Clarke: I now come to the nub of the debate—the Opposition's judgment in this whole process. I believe that the Opposition had a deliberate strategy to undermine the Bill. From the outset, they had the strategy of arguing that there was not sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill and of arguing against the programnting procedures of the House. They would have made that argument regardless of what happened. I believe that the explanation for that deliberate strategy lies in their voting record in Committee.
In Committee, we had an extraordinary series of no votes by Conservative Members on important issues of principle. I shall provide a series of examples. On the matter of payments made for proceedings on fixed penalty notices, they voted against clause 5 stand part. On extending child curfews to older children, they voted no. Liberal Democrats voted against that, provision; Labour Members voted in favour of it.
On extending current disclosure powers, Conservative Members again voted no. On reducing the rank of officers authorised to notify arrest, they voted no. On the use of video links for review of proceedings under the Terrorism Act 2000, they again voted no. On extending the national fingerprint database, they again voted no. On building the DNA database, they again voted no. On doing the same in Northern Ireland, they again voted no. On restricting DNA and fingerprint exchange with overseas authorities, they again voted no.

Mr. Graham Brady: Surely if my colleagues on the Committee were wishing to waste time, they would have sought to have more votes, not fewer.

Mr. Clarke: Each of those was a vote in which Liberal Democrat Members said that, for libertarian reasons in accordance with their principles, they did not like our proposals. Therefore, they voted. However, on each of those occasions, Conservative Members decided not to

vote. Those no votes are a matter for them, but they chose that option because they could not decide on the issues of principle involved.
When faced with the choice between libertarianism and authoritarianism, Conservative Members could not decide. When faced with the choice between the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), they could not decide. They could not resolve the next leadership battle in the Conservative party. That was the argument at the heart of Conservative policy—as we saw at the most recent Conservative party conference. Conservative Members cannot decide where they stand on those key issues. That was reflected in Committee. Throughout our proceedings in Committee, Liberal Democrat Members—although I did not agree with them—were clear on where they stood on all the issues.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can we believe anything that the Minister says when he said that he would not table a motion— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying because other hon. Members are shouting. I must be able to listen to a point of order.

Mr. Fabricant: Mr. Speaker, how can we believe anything that the Minister says when, on Friday, he said that he would table a motion on Monday, only to table it a few hours later on the same day?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that matter.

Mr. Clarke: I believe that, on that key list of amendments, Conservative Members sat on the fence for a very simple reason. They wanted to hide the deep split in the Conservative party and to hide their policy differences on every issue.

Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please take his seat while I am speaking? I hope that we will not go over points of order that have already been dealt with. It must be new business.

Mr. Brady: It is new business, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see any relevance to the motion that we are discussing in the rather pathetic, feeble excuse for an argument that the Minister is advancing.

Mr. Speake: Order. I will be the judge of that.

Mr. Clarke: For the illumination of the House, the relevance of what I am saying is that I believe that the Conservatives had a deliberate strategy of trying to wreck the working of the Committee by their conduct throughout. The explicit political reason was that their judgment was to obfuscate and obstruct, to prevaricate and pontificate, as a way of hiding their own internal divisions. That is what is was about.

Mr. Blunt: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will recall saying at the Committee's ninth sitting:
I praise the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), whose contributions, throughout the proceedings and without exception, have been constructive and to the point.
The hon. Gentleman then went on to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)
has shown no evidence of having read or discussed the Bill, and has been repetitive ad nauseam on points of no substance."— [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 1 March 2001; c. 343.]
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that he had to withdraw clauses 7 and 8 after arguments from my right hon. and learned Friend showed just how deficient the Bill was? Will he also accept that the fact that more than 50 clauses were not debated in Committee is the cause of this debate and of the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself?

Mr. Clarke: No, the cause was the Opposition's decision from the outset not to come to the kind of accommodations and discussions about the conduct of business in the House that is conventional.
I turn finally to the judgment of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. She made her position clear in the media. In the Financial Times, she said that her protest—

Mr. David Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not. The right hon. Lady said that her protest was about the fact that the Bill could not be reported and that her aim was to delay its passage. That was very explicit. She said in The Mirror that it was an official Opposition protest. She confirmed again on GMTV on Sunday that it was an official Opposition protest. The right hon. Lady deliberately flouted the House's rules to pursue her dishonourable cause. [Interruption.] She was aided and abetted by the Opposition Whips—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been out of order. I ask again that we should not have this shouting across the Chamber. I will not tolerate a situation in which hon. Members tell me how to do my job.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a proper point of order.

Miss Widdecombe: It is a proper point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to rule on whether the use of the word "dishonourable" to describe the conduct of an hon. Member is in order?

Mr. Speaker: Order. My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman used the term "dishonourable cause". He was not calling anybody dishonourable; he said that it was a dishonourable cause. [Interruption.] Order. I am giving a ruling. The hon. Gentleman is not out of order and I do

not want any Member to shout at the Chair. I have already given a ruling and a statement about Members telling me how to do my job.

Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can confirm by reading from my text that the right hon. Lady deliberately flouted the House's rules to pursue her dishonourable cause—exactly as you stated, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not. I went on to say that the right hon. Lady was aided and abetted by the Opposition Whips. The hon. Members for Beverley and Holdemess (Mr. Cran), for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) assisted her in her disruptive action. That was their deliberate intent.
The right hon. Lady was also aided and abetted by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). After the entrance into the Committee by the right hon. Lady and her colleagues in crime, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said:
On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I understand from 'Erskine May' that there have been occasions … when hon. Members have entered a Committee and stayed there … The Committee has no power to require Members to leave. My understanding of the procedure set out on pages 703 and 704 of 'Erskine May' is that after the requests have been made, the position is reported to the House".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 8 March 2001: c. 675.]
My point is that before the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends went in, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire knew and had prepared himself to deal with the situation in that way. It was an Opposition conspiracy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—to deal explicitly with that situation.
If we are talking about defending Parliament, I contrast the Opposition's practice with the experience in 1988 in respect of the Standing Committee of the Local Government Finance Bill. On that occasion the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was leading for the then Government and disruption of the same type occurred. On Thursday 21 January 1988, it was caused by the then Member for Falkirk, West, Dentin. Canavan—exactly the same thing happened and exactly the same issues arose. An hon. Member moved a resolution—as I did last Thursday. On that occasion, the resolution was that the then hon. Member for Falkirk, West be reported to the House. The Standing Committee member who moved that resolution was the present Minister of State, Department of Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—then an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. He said that such behaviour could not he tolerated or understood. That is quite unlike the position of the current Opposition.
If it was an official Opposition act, we need the answer to some questions—from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) when she opens for the Opposition or from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald when she winds up. Was that act explicitly approved by the Leader of the Opposition? Was it or was it not? Was it approved by the Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)? Was it approved or was it not? Did the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire explicitly and


directly plan those acts with his light hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the Opposition Whips?
My conclusions are clear—as, I believe will be those of the House. That act was a conspiracy to deflect Parliament. It was agreed by the official Opposition—by the whole Conservative party. It does immense personal discredit to every Conservative who does not publicly dissociate himself or herself from the actions of the right hon. Lady. It proves the right hon. Lady's unfitness for high office of any kind. It shows that the Tories are not fit to be an Opposition, let alone a Government.
I hope tonight that the House will not reward in any way such contempt for its rules. I urge the whole House to support the motion.

Mrs. Angela Browning: It is with regret that I note that the Leader of the House is not leading for the Government tonight. Clearly, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who opened for the Government—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Leader of the House tells me that it would have been a pleasure to open the debate; I am sorry that she was disappointed. She knows that matters to do with the House's experiment on programming—especially in respect of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill—have not only occupied the Committee dealing with that measure; as shadow Leader of the House, I have raised them no fewer than three times recently, because of my concern and that of my colleagues about the way in which the Committee was proceeding.
Although the Opposition are opposed to programming in principle, in the spirit of the experiment, we accepted the Government's word from the Dispatch Box that they would co-operate, that they would be flexible, that the official Opposition would be listened to and that the Government would negotiate with us in good faith.

Mr. Charles Clarke: rose—

Mr. Steve McCabe: rose—

Mrs. Browning: Let me make a little progress. I have spent quite enough time at the Dispatch Box trying to convey a message to the Government about the Bill—

Ms Joan Walley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: I do not intend to spend valuable time tonight—when it is clear from the presence of so many hon. Members in the Chamber that they' ant to contribute—on trivial interventions from Labour Members who chose not to say a word on the three occasions when I raised the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions. Instead, I shall give way to the Minister.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would explain to the House whether she was part of the conspiracy. Did she know? Did she agree?

Mrs. Browning: There is no conspiracy, merely an attempt by the official Opposition to ensure that the democratic processes of the House are carried out so that

we, as individual Members, can represent our constituents, and so that the Conservative Members serving on the Committee can make genuine representations and amend the Bill, in accordance with what we, in our recent history, have thought to be the democratic process. It is no good the Minister's waving his hand at me; I will make some progress.
The motion states that
the Criminal Justice and Police Bill shall be deemed to have been reported to the House".
As part of this wonderful experiment in programming, we are now faced with virtual legislation.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: No.
If we are to accept tonight that a Committee and all its outstanding business, which I shall mention in a moment, are deemed to have been considered and concluded, why do we not deem Second Reading debates to have been completed? Why do we not deem Report stages to have been completed? Why do we not deem ourselves to be elsewhere, and allow some robots to sit on these Benches and legislate on behalf of the people of this country?
The House should not be surprised that the Bill has caused great anger among Conservative Members, although the Conservative party concurs with many of its provisions and has helped to fashion them in Committee so that it can become a better Bill. It was in that spirit that my hon. Friends approached the Bill's consideration in Committee.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: I will give way, but just to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: grateful to the hon. Lady. Just for the record, will she tell the House and the public what fundamental objections, if any, the Tory party has to the Bill?

Mr. Browning: My hon. Friends have raised many issues in Committee, and the Minister spelt out his objection to the fact that Conservative Members did not vote for several amendments and clauses. In many cases, my hon. Friends were not objecting in principle; they were objecting to the detailed wording and to the way in which the provisions were introduced. That is what a Committee is for; it is intended to scrutinise the detail, the wording and the amendments.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: No, I will not.
The Minister of State knows that the purpose of considering a Bill in Committee is to scrutinise the detail and vote on the particular, not on the generality. It is normal in Committee for hon. Members to accept a principle but not to vote for or concur with the detail of certain provisions. Hence, they abstain on many provisions, as was the case with the Bill.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Does the hon. Lady accept that many of the issues were in fact points of principle,


not points of detail? Will she confirm that she knew what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was going to do last Thursday before she did it?

Mrs. Browning: My right hon. Friend had no discussion with me about her actions on Thursday.

Ms Walley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has already indicated that she is not giving way.

Mrs. Browning: In conclusion on the previous intervention, if the Government choose not to accept Conservative amendments, they should not be surprised if the Conservative Members serving on the Committee do not vote for their proposals. That is the normal procedure in Committee, and I am surprised that, having refused the amendments, the Minister should make such a fuss about it.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: No. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that I want to make progress by stating our principled objections to the programme motions that have resulted in the Bill becoming such a shambles.
At business questions on 1 March, I put it to the Leader of the House that there were problems with the Bill in Committee. When the right hon. Lady replied, she did not address any of my concerns relating to the Bill. I raised the matter again on 8 March, which was my last opportunity at the Dispatch Box to raise with the Leader of the House our genuine concerns about the Bill's progress in Committee. I am sorry to say that, again, the right hon. Lady failed to make representations to her right hon. Friends. As we know, on 8 March, the Committee stage was concluded.
The Committee had only reached clause 90 by the conclusion of its proceedings on Thursday 8 March. Elements of the Bill that were not discussed by the Committee at all included setting up the police training authority, changes to the constitution of police authorities, changes to police ranks, inferences to be drawn from silence in police conduct proceedings, pensions for staff, courts to give reasons for granting opposed bail, expenditure interpretation and repeals. Many important matters remained outstanding. Not only that: yet further amendments in the name of the Minister of State, Home Office are before us tonight. These amendments are bundled up in the wording of the motion. Does the hon. Gentleman even intend to describe to the House tonight that they mean? Are they to be deemed to have been accepted without any discussion in, or explanation to, the House?

Mr. Charles Clarke: rose—

Mrs. Browning: I shall give way to the Minister. Does he want to explain the amendments to the House?

Mr. Clarke: What I want the hon. Lady to do is accept that the Committee did not finish its business, because it was disrupted by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.

Mrs. Browning: That is rather disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman.

Menzies Campbell: will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: I shall, since it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This is the last intervention.

Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Lady did not know of the plan for disruption, will she tell us whether she endorses or dissociates herself from it?

Mrs. Browning: The actions of my right hon. and hon. Friends were the only actions left given that, just hours before, as shadow Leader of the House, I had used the only opportunity that was available to us to put to the Leader of the House the difficulties that we were encountering with the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): rose—

Mrs. Browning: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I read what he said in Committee.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: 1 shall give way to the right hon. Lady shortly.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department wasted more than one whole sitting of the Committee on clauses that he eventually abandoned, having been extremely rude about the former Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and having virtually told my right hon. and learned Friend that he did not know what he was talking about. The hon. Gentleman then had to withdraw the clauses, so I do not think that we want to hear anything from him.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady claims that I made no response to the representations that she made about the timing and handling of the Committee. She must recall that that is not correct. She knows, I am sure, that I repeatedly made it plain, first having inquired into the circumstances that she was describing to the House, that the Government had offered extra time and that the Conservative Opposition had not taken that offer up. That is not the same thing as no action being taken. The hon. Lady is not correct in saying that.

Mrs. Browning: The record of business questions on 1 March shows that, when I first raised the issue, the right


hon. Lady did not, as she usually does—she is usually very particular in responding to each of my points—respond specifically to the point that I made about the Bill. She responded to a point about another Bill—the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill—to which she referred, but she did not mention this Bill at all.

Mrs. Beckett: I can clarify that for the hon. Lady. At that point in time, I did not precisely recall what the explanation was. I did recall it later. As she says, when she raised the issue on the last occasion, I made it plain to her that the Government had offered extra time, which is the clear answer to the basic point that she has made, as she rightly says, on number of occasions.

Mrs. Browning: The problem when we run into difficulties with programming is thal there is no record of what has been discussed in the Programming Sub-Committees. However, we know that, in this case, the Government voted down the Opposition's proposals. It was my clear understanding, not only from the right hon. Lady but from Labour Members in general, when we discussed the issue in November that unless we made an outrageous and cavalier request this Government would consider our opinion and help to accommodate us. I believe that my hon. Friends' requests were reasonable, which is supported by the fact that we have felt it necessary not to conclude the Bill. Had the Government acted as they said they would, we would have had more time to scrutinise the Bill and they would have got their end date. It was all achievable.

Mr. Bercow: The Government are clearly being deliberately obtuse. Does my hon. Friend recall the 1997–98 Session, when the Crimi; and Disorder Bill, which was 152 pages long, had 22 Committee sittings and 54 hours of debate? Does she also recall that the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that that was a good example of how a Committee stage should operate? Is it not obviously absurd that a Bill of comparable length-150 pages—should have only 15 Committee sittings and 38 hours of debate? Surely that is so obvious that only the most extraordinarily clever person could fail to see it.

Mrs. Browning: It is obvious, and this Bill is comparable in terms of the work involved.
The motion states that we shall be deemed to have concluded our proceedings on the Bill. If we deem ourselves to have passed legislation that has not been scrutinised either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, we will set a precedent that could well be used in praying in aid the outcome of court cases. Hon. Members will be familiar with Pepper v. Hart, which decided that a Minister's interpretation was important in determining Parliament's will when the House considered legislation. How could any court del eimine our will if we deem ourselves to pass great chunks of legislation—

Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way again.
If Parliament passes great chunks of legislation that have not been scrutinised or debated at all, how can the courts determine our will? We mth,t be very careful.

However annoyed the Minister may be that his Bill has come to the surface as an example of why programming is not only a mistake but damaging to our democratic process, it would be wrong if, in a fit of pique, his antics tonight were accepted by the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Antics?"] Antics was the word I used, and antics was the word I meant. If the hon. Gentleman's antics were seen as being accepted by the House, there would be a read-across for this and many other Bills.

Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: No, I am sorry, but I am really not giving way. [Interruption.] The Minister says that the antics of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) have brought us to this state of affairs. It might have been different had we been able to accept the Government's word that programming motions would be negotiated and that there would be compromise between the parties. However, this Bill got off to the wrong start. The Minister knows that the whole House had the opportunity to negotiate the programme motion on the basis of information that was not even accurate.
It is no good the Government praying in aid the fact that somebody had a personal appointment or saying that the half-term holiday reduced the time for which the Committee could sit. It was evident to my colleagues on the Committee that more time was needed for discussion, yet it had to be drawn out of the Government hour by hour, and even then it was not enough. If the Bill had been properly drafted and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department had not wasted at least half a day of the Committee's time on clauses that he withdrew, we would clearly have been in a much better position tonight.
We are focusing on a particular Bill, and an important one at that, but it has demonstrated that the current experiment in programming is not only an abysmal failure but an affront to the democratic process.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Everybody, especially many Labour Members who spent 18 years in opposition, understands that opposition is frustrating, and there will be many occasions on which the Opposition do not get their way on programme motions or guillotines. We could name plenty of occasions when much less time has been allocated to Bills more controversial than this.
I want to be clear about the answer given by the hon. Lady, who is the shadow Leader of the House and aspires to be Leader of the House, to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Is she saying that it is now the official Opposition's policy that where they object to the time allocated to a Bill, they believe that the generation of "grave disorder"—those are the words of the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—by Front-Bench Opposition Members is entirely justifiable?

Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Gentleman completely misrepresents the case because the actions of my—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) is very noisy this evening. I do not want to hear him.

Mrs. Browning: The actions of my right hon. and hon. Friends last Thursday were in answer to the negative


response that we had received not only in Committee but on the Floor of the House. As shadow Leader of the House, I personally did everything in my power to try to resolve that on-going problem before the Committee reached its final stage. The Home Secretary will be aware that, in the words of the Leader of the House, this procedure is an experiment. I hope that, as a result of what has happened with this Bill, he will realise that the experiment needs to be halted or radically changed. I am sure that, as a radical himself in days gone by, he will recognise the thrust of what I am saying.

Mr. Straw: As I said, we all understand the concerns of the Opposition about whether enough time has been made available, but the hon. Lady has just said, from the Front Bench, that she can justify the generation of grave disorder by Front-Bench Members as part of a protest. As the grave disorder was directed not at the Government but at the Chairman of the Committee and, by implication, the Chair of the House, may we take it that the hon. Lady is endorsing, as an official Opposition policy, grave disorder undermining the authority of the Chair?

Mrs. Browning: No. What undermines the authority of the House, whether in the Chamber or a Committee, is the fact that the official Opposition can no longer take the word of members of the Government. When they come to the House and say 16 sittings, they should mean 16 sittings. The Government say that the changes are an experiment, and that they will be co-operative and flexible, but they are not. We have assessed the situation and used every opportunity possible. We are not making a complaint or trying to insult the Chair of any Committee of this House. We are standing up for the democratic rights of the people of this country, and we will continue to do so even if they are not held in respect by the Government of the day. The sooner the people of this country change the Government of the day, the sooner we can get back to democracy as we have known it in this Chamber and the country.

Mrs. Beckett: rose—

Mrs. Browning: I give way for the final time because I want to conclude my remarks.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand that the hon. Lady wants to make progress, and I understand also that she finds herself in a very unfortunate position. I say to her in her role as shadow Leader of the House that many of us—[Interruption.] I do not need advice from Conservative Members, thank you very much. When we were on the Opposition Benches, many of us found ourselves sympathising with actions taken by Members in objection—not normally by the shadow Home Secretary, but we will not go into that—but we simply understood that this House cannot work unless Members, and particularly Front Benchers, sustain the authority of the Chair. Even if we think that the Chairman's ruling is mistaken, we must sustain the authority of the Chair in this House. I hope that the hon. Lady will indicate that she understands that.

Mrs. Browning: I should not have to remind the hon. Lady that the experiment has caused such chaos

because—for the first time ever—she and her Government have imposed on this House changes to the Standing Orders without the agreement of the official Opposition. When people flout the rules of the House and show no respect whatever for its precedents, this is the result. It is not any affront to any Chairman; it is a definite affront to this Government, who respect neither this House nor its procedures.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: We have just heard what I can only describe as an astonishing speech by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was right to press her on these matters. I was involved in an incident such as this some years ago, and I want to draw to the attention of the House what happened on that occasion and the position taken by Conservative Members and, indeed, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who voted against me.
I was concerned about proceedings in the Select Committee on Members' Interests—the former Privileges Committee—in the case of an inquiry into Neil Hamilton. I was worried that a Conservative Whip had been placed on the Committee. I sought to obstruct proceedings because I felt that that Whip was interfering with proceedings and leading the Committee, with its Conservative majority, into taking partisan decisions. It was clear—this all happened prior to Nolan—that the Committee was being politically manipulated. I confess that I took a maverick position and obstructed proceedings.
What was interesting about that affair was what happened when the matter came before House. As my right hon. Friend the header of the House said, the Labour Opposition sought to protect the House and prevent the likes of me carrying out similar practices in future. I refer to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who spoke from the Opposition Frort Bench in the debate on the motion that dealt with my conduct. He said:
I see no case for disrupting Committee procedures, whether they be Select or Standing Committees held in public or in private. Hon. Members can always find a suitably convenient time and place to raise any issue that they want on the Floor of the House. I remember those long distant days wren we had a Labour Government—those times will soon return—and, as a humble Back Bencher, I found that I could raise any issue that I chose whenever I chose to do so by using the procedures of the House.
That was the position we took in opposition. It was a thoroughly responsible position, but I had made my point.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) also spoke in the debate. I shall watch with great interest which way he decides to vote tonight. He said:
What the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has done is wrong. I appreciate that he holds strong opinions about the matter, but it must be wrong for any Member of the House to override the procedures of the House and take it on himself to decide the way in which the Committees operate. As a result of the hon. Gentleman's behaviour the Select Committee has been obstructed."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 404-06.]


The hon. Gentleman might wish to intervene to tell me which way he intends to vote. Can we rely on him being consistent in the approach that he takes to these matters?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of hearing my views later in the debate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I will look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's views. I shall take great interest in them.
There is another Member for whom I have particular affection this evening, as do many of my hon. Friends. I understand that we have all 'come with the same tracts and quotes. It does not surprise me that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton took upon herself the duty of speaking for the Opposition. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) may have had great difficulty in doing so. He, too, participated in the debate in 1995, and he led for the Opposition in Standing Committee F. He is the one who made the complaint. He conspired with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald to carry out their little dirty deed. He cannot deny it.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the hon. Gentleman's contribution when he opened the debate. The hon. Gentleman said:
My understanding of the procedure set out on pages 703 and 704 of 'Erskine May' is that after the requests have been made, the position is reported to the House".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 8 March 2001; c. 675.]
He continued with that sort of stuff. He could never have known what pages 703 and 704 said. He does not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of "Erskine May"; he must have known in advance what would happen. I put it to him—he can deny it from the Opposition Dispatch Box—that he was party to the conspiracy.

Mr. Heald: In Committee, the Opposition were pushed to a point that was intolerable. We were pushed by a Minister who was so arrogant that he would not give the time that was needed for debate. There was no option left.
I have quite an encyclopaedic knowledge of "Erskine May", and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Those were interesting words, and I think that we heard them correctly. The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition were pushed to the point of opposition.

Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. The hon. Gentleman can speak when I have finished. I have something to say about him, as well.
The debate is rather like the one that we had the other month on programme motions. The Conservatives leave so much dirty linen in their cupboard. There are so many opportunities for us to respond to their points—

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would like Opposition Members to hear what I am about to say because it is quite remarkable.
I shall quote the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, who speaks for the Opposition on these matters. In the debate on my misdemeanour in Committee, he said:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee has its authority as a result of the resolution of this place, that it is therefore arrogant of him to say that its decisions, which are made with that authority, are wrong, and that he is entitled just to walk into the Committee and speak in breach of all the rules? What does that say about this place's powers and the Committee's authority? Is he not breaching it through arrogance?
That is said of me—arrogance.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, no; there is a lot more to come, and I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the best come at the end.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said:
If we invest a Committee with authority, especially an authority which … is absolute and exclusive in a certain area, it should be wrong for individual Members, whether they be the hon. Member for Workington or. indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery"—
that was Mr. Carlile—
to say that their judgment is greater than that of the House, greater than that of the Committee, thereby abandoning an essential principle. If one sets up such a Committee, as we have in this House, we should not interfere with its authority.
That is the hon. Gentleman's position.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire continued:
That principle has been in this place for more than 150 years. In 1844, the Speaker observed in a similar issue"—

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), but I must say to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that it is fairly evident that the hon. Member for Workington is not giving way at present.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I return to the quote from 1844. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire obviously felt passionately about the matter. The Speaker said in 1844 that
no member who was not a Member of the Committee had any right to interfere with the proceedings … though he might be present in the room.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire went on to say that
we might just as well go back to having a Committee of the whole House with witnesses brought to the Bar of the House—if all Members were entitled to attend Committees and to interfere in the processes. There must be a remedy.
On the remedy, the hon. Gentleman said:
The only remedy is that which the motion suggests—in fact, the traditional remedy. On other occasions when it has been necessary to exclude a Member from a Committee, a motion has been placed


before the whole House and that person has then been told that he must not attend the Committee at the behest of the Chairman. If there is no remedy, such Committees will become meaningless.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
I do not believe that it is right for an individual Member to put his strong views above those of the House. When this place has decided by resolution to give a Committee authority to deal with an issue, it is simply wrong for another Member to be there trying to interfere with the members of the Committee and with its deliberations.
The hon. Gentleman put a prolonged case. He clearly believed passionately in it, yet he sits on the Front Bench today, somehow justifying the actions taken by his right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. He continued:
A more fundamental issue is at stake—the law of Parliament, which has set out those principles for more than 150 years, and which the hon. Member for Workington, aided and abetted by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, now wishes to break and to treat with contempt. That says something about the form of campaign with which they wish to associate themselves."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 389–98.]
There is more. The House would get bored if I went on, but there are pages of such quotes.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In a minute.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire shamefacedly sits before the House, defending his right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald for doing what I did, and himself being party to the decision that she should proceed in the way that she did. Far worse in many ways is the fact that what those right hon. and hon. Members did was official. It was done on behalf of the Opposition. That shows that they have changed their very attitude towards Parliament. Whereas historically the Conservative party stood for law and order, it now stands for no law, no rules and disorder.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has been in the House as long as I have, and he used to have a reputation for defending parliamentary liberty. He knows a lot about the history of Parliament. Does he not recognise that, from time to time, hon. Members have had to define the practices of the House to cure a greater injustice? May I remind him of Mr. Bradlaugh and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), both of whom defied the practices of the House to cure a greater injustice? That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) did last week.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is true. There has been a series of those incidents over the years, but there is a distinction between those that have occurred in the past 200 years and the one that we are discussing this evening. This occasion, unlike those in 1849, 1827, 1952, 1974, 1982, 1989, 1994 and 1991, was organised by members of the shadow Cabinet—people who, in six weeks, will aspire to run this country. That includes the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who seeks to be Leader of the House of Commons. Tonight, at the Dispatch Box, she is sanctioning outrageous activity. That is deplorable and, in my view, she should withdraw immediately from the Chamber.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, in line 2, leave out from 'be' to end and add
'remitted to Standing Committee F for consideration of all remaining clauses, schedules and amendments not so far debated in Standing Committee without limit of time for further consideration; that a week shall elapse between the completion of Committee Stage and the commencement of Report Stage: and that notwithstanding the Order of the House of 29th January, Report Stage do continue without limit of time until completion; and that one day be allocated for the Third Reading of the Bill.'
Liberal Democrat Members tabled the amendment, and Conservative Member; added their names to it. The speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was a useful and helpful contribution. In the words of Edward Lear, I was coming to it. I shall return to a slight inconsistency in a minute.
May I remind the House of the Bill that we are discussing? It is the Government's flagship legislation and has run into trouble tonight. In fact, it ran into trouble over its content a long time ago. It raises serious law and order issues and, as we discovered both on Second Reading and in Committee—when my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I tested the Government—it raise; major civil liberty issues too.

Mrs. Joan Humble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, not at the moment.
In many cases, the ideas in the Bill were shown to be flawed and its policies unworkable. The Government proved to those Committee members who listened and paid attention that a lot of it was about trying to find "eye-catching initiatives"—in the words of the Prime Minister—to put in the pre-election shop window. We all know that if the Prime Minister keeps to his intention to hold the election on 3 May, the Bill will not complete its parliamentary stages anyway.
This is a flagship Bill with no port of destination. Its cargo is fatally flawed, and now it has run into difficulties concerning procedure in the House.  [Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members are making innumerable contributions: the Bill has foundered; it is sinking; it is sandbagged; it has run into difficulties. Although it does not sound like it tonight, the Bill is beached, if not becalmed.
The issue before the House is not whether we have programme motions for Government Bills, but whether, for the first time in our history, we get rid of whole stages of procedure and allow a Government, however arrogant and consistent they have been in wanting to push their business through, to get the approval of the House for a procedural stage to be completely removed. This is a night for Parliament, Labour Back-Benchers and Opposition Members to say to the Government, "You must not have your motion accepted because Parliament should never be told that it should not do its job properly." If there has been disruption, we should go back to where we were and not get rid of a Committee stage which, for one reason or another—I shall come to that later—we could not finish.
The arrogance of the Government—arrogance is often a manifestation of Governments—has led them to become a Government trying to railroad a Bill through Parliament.


I remind Labour Members that their party received 43 per cent. of the vote, not a majority of the votes of the British people, at the previous election. Only 30 per cent. of the electorate voted for them: not a majority, nor even a third of the electorate. They cannot, therefore, come to the House claiming that they speak for the British people. They speak for a minority of the people, just like the rest of us.
The accident of the present distorted political system gives the Labour party more Members of Parliament, but the job of Parliament is to ensure that the accident of the electoral system does not mean a denial of democracy for the citizen. We shall not allow the Government, however big their majority, to get away with brushing aside parliamentary procedures. We shall ensure, if possible, that Parliament resists whoever is on the Government Benches taking away powers from Back Benchers and giving them to the Government, just because they have decided that they want to get lid of parliamentary procedures.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does not the hon. Gentleman's party support the principle of programming? The amendment that he and his hon. Friends have tabled today appears contrary to what his party agreed to in the Modernisation Committee, and to what has been agreed to by the House. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the tactics used by Conservative Members last Thursday—which could be used time and again in disputes in which hon. Members disagree about difficult issues—completely negate how democracy in Parliament works?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has asked two perfectly proper questions. He served on the Modernisation Committee, and we appreciate his work. On his first point, we believe in sensible programming, provided that Front Benchers and Back Benchers have a say in how that is decided, and provided that, when a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that we shall have 16 sittings, we have 16 sittings. On this occasion, we went from the 16 sittings announced by the Government to the 14 announced by the Government in Committee, then, after negotiation, to 15.
I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect, that if the Government propose a programme, they must keep to the promises and the proposals that they make. On a flagship Bill, they cannot expect Opposition Members suddenly to sign away the amount of time for its consideration that the Government had told us—although we had not agreed to it—was the least that we would have.
The Liberal Democrats have supported the idea of programming, but we have never supported the way in which the Government have set about implementing it. We should not have programme motions put before the House the minute after Second Reading. Such programme motions do not take into account the breadth of views expressed on Second Reading; nor do they give the House an opportunity to consider them, If we are to have programme motions, they must be introduced at a decent interval after Second Reading, when the House has been able to reflect on how much time needs to be given to each Bill.

Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman of something that many hon. Members seem to have

forgotten. The proposal that programme motions should be taken with Second Reading was contained in the first report of the Modernisation Committee—before I was a member of it—which was carried unanimously.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Lady is quite right to remind the House of that. However, she knows that our shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), has said on regular occasions since he and the right hon. Lady took on their respective jobs that, if we are to get agreement across the House, we must allow time for the House to reflect on Second Reading debates.
I shall come to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), concerning the behaviour of Conservative Front-Bench Members, in a minute, as it is an important matter and one that I want to say something about.
The Bill is not only a flagship Bill; it is a Bill containing 132 clauses, and one to which a large number new clauses and 300 amendments have been tabled, many by the Government. At the beginning of our last afternoon sitting, we had got as far as clause 77, out of 132. When we finished our work last Thursday evening, we had only reached clause 90 out of 132. There were amendments yet to be considered, including Government amendments.
Those who chaired the Committee—experienced Members of the House—were clear that there had been no filibustering. Both kept the Committee on a tight rein. My hon. Friends and I pay tribute to them for doing an extremely competent job, as the House would expect of them. If they said that all debate was in order, clearly there had not been enough time to complete consideration. When we finished last Thursday afternoon, had there not been the proceedings to which I shall refer in a moment, about a third of the Bill remained to be considered. We should have considered all of it. Parliament had not properly done its work when the guillotine fell on the timetabled Committee debates.

Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he would not want to give the House the impression that we had considered 77 clauses. We had not considered the whole of part III, from clauses 49 to 69.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is correct. He also played an extremely good and effective role in Committee. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman was very much an independent Back Bencher who moved his own amendments and argued on his own as well as supporting his colleagues. Debate on the early parts of the Bill was often guillotined and we did not fully consider the rest, so it is true to say that we had not properly considered many measures, including significant clauses.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he not overlooking the fact that the equivalent of a full sitting was wasted by Opposition Members discussing programming and procedural motions?

Mr. Hughes: I do not accept that because all the debate was clearly in order. The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee and he knows that that was the ruling. It is not


surprising that programming was discussed when we were debating the flagship Bill of this Session, which deals with controversial matters.
Although the hon. Gentleman will remember, I remind him that we were debating fixed penalty notices—not uncontroversial; whether curfews should be extended to under-16s—not uncontroversial; how we should deal with alcohol and alcohol-related offences—not uncontroversial; drug-related offences; protection of witnesses and possible witnesses; granting bail; information exchange between Departments and between the Government and agencies abroad—not uncontroversial; limits on the rules of detention; and the use of video links in extending detention under terrorism legislation, which is extremely controversial.
The hon. Gentleman will also remember that, at the end of proceedings, we were discussing not only how to deal with animal rights extremists, which is a matter of particular interest and concern to him for perfectly proper reasons, but whether innocent people whose DNA samples were taken when they were under suspicion should be allowed to have those samples withdrawn, rather than being held for the rest of their lives even though they have done nothing wrong. If those are not controversial civil liberty and law and order matters that need proper debate, I do not know what are.
I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister dealt with the Committee and argued the Government's case. To his credit, he agreed that major issues such as DNA sampling deserve a major national debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I voted in and forced Divisions more often than the Conservatives. We did not agree with the fixed penalty notice system proposed by the Government. We were not in favour of some of the Government's proposals to allow the authorities to close licensed premises without warning landlords.
We were not in favour of extending child curfews, which have not worked for the under-10s, to the under-16s when the police say that curfews would not work for them either. We were not in favour of extending without qualification the power of seizure. We opposed the Government because we were not in favour of detention under terrorist legislation being extended to people at a remote distance. We were not in favour of allowing DNA samples to be kept indefinitely.
We opposed. the Government. I am surprised that the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) did not oppose his Government on those hugely important matters. All deserve to be debated properly.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the debate on each issue of principle that he has raised was substantial and not guillotined? Debate on non-key issues was guillotined.

Mr. Hughes: In general terms, the Minister is right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] No, the Minister is right, except that the debate was guillotined. We had a timetable and a fixed end point. The Government wanted to come out of Committee by 8 March. Some of us think that that had something to do with a possible election on 3 May. The Government fixed the end point, and they fixed staging points. Although we had decent debates on the major

matters, by the end of our consideration of the Bill we were trying to deal with important issues, such as the running, training and organising of the police. The Minister knows that those police matters would never have been debated.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with my fundamental point. Does he also acknowledge that we debated clause 1 for four hours and clause 2 for two and a half hours? We fully discussed issues such as fixed penalty notices, as he would wish.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I have argued that there were major matters to debate. We had some major debates, but the question is whether we had enough time to consider a flagship Bill of more than 130 clauses. The answer must be no, given that we had only reached clause 90 half an hour before the end of the last sitting.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we did not discuss issues such as the disclosure of tax records, the seizure of property, and police organisation, training and discipline—given that the burden of proof is to be changed for disciplinary proceedings? Those are not trivial matters, and many outside bodies, including chartered accountants, lawyers, the Police Federation, police authorities and the National Association of Probation Officers, and individuals wanted us to debate those matters properly and to seek assurances, but we were not able to do so.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is correct. This is a two-part Bill: it is a criminal justice Bill and a police Bill. The police clauses started at clause 86, and we began to debate that clause at some stage last Thursday. We only had until 7 o'clock to debate all the matters to do with the police. Hon. Members on both sides of the House spend much time saying how important the police are, how much we value them, how many more we want to recruit, how difficult it is to hang on to them, and how undervalued they are. I do not think that the police can be satisfied when those clauses in the one Bill in this Session that deals with police matters are allocated less than a day in Committee, and we do not discuss about 40 clauses to do with their future, their structure and their organisation. On that point, I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's view.
We were a few minutes away from the end of the Committee last Thursday when things took a turn for the slightly bizarre. One of the Government's difficulties is that in opposition— I accept that it was not members of the Front Bench—the Labour party often used tactics, as we did, to ensure that it gave the Conservative Government a hard time. We must all be careful not to be self-righteous about this. When Government want to get their business through, they use the levers available to them. When the Opposition want to stop them, they will use ruses to try to do so. Trying to block the timetable has always been one of the weapons open to Opposition parties and to Back Benchers. I and my colleagues have used it, and I give credit to the Conservative party for what happened on Thursday, because it was a good wheeze and it delayed the proceedings.
My hon. Friend and I are slightly confused.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No. not for the moment.
On all the important matters of principle—fixed penalty notices, child curfews, closing licensed premises, extending powers of seizures, allowing detention by remote link and DNA samples—we did not notice the Tory party opposing the Government.

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No.
This is the great flagship Bill. Of course, there were differences and unhappiness about the nature and extent of the legislation, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), on the fundamental principles there did not seem to be any opposition to the 10 major ideas in the Bill.
On Thursday, we saw a protest about procedure, but on a Bill on which the Tory party's view was pretty similar to that of the Government. It might have been better to protest about the Bill and its content than to protest about the way in which the Government were taking the Bill through the House.

Mr. Heald: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be so shocked. We did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. The point is that there were numerous matters of detail in regard to which we had tabled amendments, wanted assurances and wanted to improve the Bill. As a result, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have dropped two clauses, accepted four amendments, and agreed to reconsider a range of other matters and issue guidance. We served our purpose when we were able to do so; the complaint is that, for much of the time, we were not able to do so.

Mr. Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's position, about which he has always been straightforward. The Conservatives did not object fundamentally to the policy in the Bill. They wanted to improve it; they wanted assurances. In regard to certain matters—perfectly properly—the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and my party agreed that the Government needed to be pushed, exposed and pressed, and the Government made concessions. I make no criticism of that. My point is that the great showdown took place in connection with a Bill on which the Tory and Labour parties have one view, and we have another. It is a strange coincidence in British politics that on law and order the differences between Tories and Labour become narrower every day, almost paling into insignificance—[Interruption.] It is true. It is left to some of us to argue about both the procedure and the principle.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will give way once more.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Surely the scandal is not who said what on a particular clause, but the fact that no one said anything about so many clauses.

Mr. Hughes: I have said so myself. The hon. Gentleman, who is consistently good in this regard, knows that the House must stand up for the rights of the House—Back Benchers, Front Benchers and members of every party—to take an interest at each stage of the proceedings.

The mischief tonight is that we are being asked by the Government to cut out a whole section of procedure, to ignore the last part of the Bill, and to behave as though it had never had a Committee stage and had never been tested. That must go beyond what Parliament has ever been asked to do.
I sincerely hope that when this is put to a vote, not just the hon. Gentleman—who I am sure is entirely trustworthy on matters such as this—but Members on both sides of the House will realise that the issue is bigger than the Bill or the Government of the day. As Mr. Speaker said about an hour ago, there has never been a precedent for a motion such as this, and the House should not allow a precedent to be set tonight.
As for the action on Thursday, I have said that in terms of procedural rules it was—described neutrally—a jolly good wheeze. It is also true that, as the hon. Member for Workington has argued throughout his distinguished career, many great parliamentary developments have occurred because of peaceful protests by those elected to Parliament. Many things would not have happened otherwise, and many people—not just the Charles Bradlaughs, but many others—would not have secured rights for parliamentarians had they not protested and taken a stand. There is a difference, however, and the hon. Gentleman put his finger on it.
Here was someone who aspired, and still aspires, to be Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, leading a protest, seconded by someone who wants to be Home Office spokesman on police matters and backed by the Conservative Chief Whip. The shadow Leader of the House now endorses the protest. That is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is one thing for Back Benchers to engage in a peaceful protest and challenge the Government; it is something else for people who, as the hon. Gentleman said, aspire to govern the country from the Home Office in six or seven weeks and to set an example in regard to law and order to act as they did.
I sometimes feel a grudging respect and admiration for the antics of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), but I think she made a terrible error of judgment on Thursday evening. For her and her colleagues, who speak on Home Office matters and who want to set an example in regard to law and order, to lead such "non-law and order" activity and defy the Chair of the Committee—who was trying to do a job on behalf of the House—was indeed a bad error of judgment. It was not an example to set: it was not an example of upholding the law, and not an example that the Tory party can easily justify or be proud of. If the right hon. Lady, with that record, ever were to become Home Secretary, heaven preserve the rest of us. If that is the example from the top, there is not much hope for the people at the bottom.

Miss Widdecombe: The burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that it would have been perfectly all right if I had asked some Back Benchers to go in, but that it was not all right for me to go and do it myself in a straightforward and honourable manner.

Mr. Hughes: As I said, if Back Benchers had done it, it would have been an entirely different kettle of fish. However, I understand that the right hon. Lady is never one to shy away from a teeny bit of publicity and that that


was another golden opportunity. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said about the intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), I think that I heard a plea of guilty, but the mitigation seemed to be argued at the same time.
On Thursday, the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) was absolutely right and the Conservative party leadership was absolutely wrong. Tomorrow, I think, the House will have an opportunity to decide whether we have to give the right hon. Lady and her colleagues a disciplinary rebuke for Thursday's events. That is a matter for us. In about six weeks, however, the country may have to judge the prospect of a Conservative Government. My judgment is that, on that occasion, the country will give Conservative Members collectively a red card.
Today, however, we are considering a Government motion, and an Opposition amendment that attempts to reassert the rights of the House. I hope that the House will say that the Bill should return to Committee; the Committee should finish its consideration of the Bill; and that only then should the Bill be considered on Report and Third Reading in the House. It is a very simple choice: do we properly observe democratic procedures, or do we allow an unprecedented Government motion to deny debate to which Parliament is entitled? I hope that hon. Members, including many Labour Back Benchers, will support the amendment and that the Government will not be so arrogant again.

Mr. Phil Hope: The motion has been tabled because four Conservative Members—the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown)—decided to cause grave disorder in Standing Committee F, which was considering the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. Opposition Front Benchers themselves have now confessed that that was a deliberate and premeditated manoeuvre to prevent the Committee from completing its business in the time allocated to it in the programme motion on which the whole House had voted.
Clearly, therefore, the action was not taken by a group of renegades. It was not even a leadership bid, prior to the general election, by an aspirant leader of the Tory party. It was a planned campaign by Opposition Members, with the endorsement of the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. The Committee Chairman was left in the impossible position of having to deal with an organised rebellion and challenge by Opposition Members to his authority as Committee Chairman.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) so eloquently said, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)—who sought to oppose the motion moved by the Standing Committee Chairman, who is a Conservative Member, asking those Opposition Members to leave the Committee—spoke in the 1995 debate on Select

Committees. I should like to add a couple of quotes to those given by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that the issue at stake is
the upholding of our constituents' rights. I believe that for that purpose the law of Parliament is important. Once we start breaking that law, there will be no end to it."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 399.]
That is why it is so important that this motion be passed.

Maria Eagle: Will my hon. Friend also look at the comments of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in that debate regarding the misbehaviour of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? The hon. Gentleman said:
The worrying aspect is the 'demoism'—the wish to take direct action to establish a form of street cred. The House should have no truck with that."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 399.]

Mr. Hope: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the cant and hypocrisy of the Conservative party, which said one thing when it was in power in 1995 and which acts another way now.
In 1995, the then Conservative Leader of the House moved, with the support of the then Opposition, that any Select Committee
shall have power to direct such Member to withdraw forthwith; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such instructions as he may receive from the chairman of the committee in pursuance of this Order."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 383.]
However, we are today talking about a Standing Committee of the House, a point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire in defence of his Front Benchers as they tried to disrupt the democratic procedures of the House.
How often will we allow this kind of behaviour to take place in this Parliament? What action should Parliament take to prevent an organised rebellion by the Opposition from undermining the democratic procedures of the House?

Pike: Is it not a fact that a democracy can work only if the Opposition are positive about their role? If they misuse the rules, democracy can be ground to a halt.

Mr. Hope: My hon. Friend is right. The passage from "Erskine May" quoted by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire makes it clear that there have been orders in the past
empowering the chairman of a standing committee to direct that any Member who disregards the authority of the chair or persistently and wilfully obstructs the business of the committee do withdraw immediately and directing the Serjeant at Arms to act on any consequent orders he may receive from the chairman.

Mr. Rogers: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is surprised at the behaviour of the Conservative party. The yob tendency has always been there. There was one occasion when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) picked up the Mace to disrupt proceedings. I cannot quite see the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) being cast


in the role of Jane to the right hon. Gentleman's Tarzan. The Conservatives have always been a yob party. If they do not get their way, they behave like a bunch of yobs.

Mr. Hope: My hon. Friend is right. The anti-social behaviour orders that the Government have introduced to deal with yobs in the community may well have some bearing in the House.

Maria Eagle: Has my hon. Friend noticed from the debate in 1995 on disruption in Select Committees that the response of the then Government was immediately to come to the House to change a Standing Order to give a general power to Select Committee Chairmen to deal immediately with this kind of behaviour? Does he agree that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might consider giving a general power to Standing Committee Chairmen so that we do not have to come to the House on every occasion to ask for a particular power?

Mr. Hope: My hon. Friend makes the very point that I was about to make. Although "Erskine May" makes it clear that there have been orders in the past on various occasions, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington listed, there is no general power for a Standing Committee Chairman to impose his authority where there is and has been, as in this case, a persistent and wilful desire to obstruct the business of the House. It is therefore incumbent on the House to determine whether such a procedure, which currently applies to Select Committees, should now apply to Standing Committees to prevent the undermining of our democratic process.
The motion is before us because of the Conservative party's appalling behaviour. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald purports to support the rule of law and to condemn those who break the law, yet, with breathtaking hypocrisy, she deliberately set out to flout and break the rules of the House by which we make the very laws that she seeks to uphold. That exposes the arrogant contempt with which she treats our democratic—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and about hypocrisy should be withdrawn and apologised for.

Mr. Hope: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I have made any comments that are outside the accepted procedures of the House.
I hope that I am clearly making the point both to the House and to the external world that the contempt with which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has behaved with regard to the Bill's Committee exposes the fact that she thinks that there is one rule for behaving outside but another way of behaving in the House.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House precisely how democracy is protected by a motion of one paragraph stating that the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the House? Is that not an outrageous breach of the rule that he is trying to establish?

Mr. Hope: Obviously the hon. Gentleman did not bother to listen to the first part of my contribution: the

reasons we are debating this matter at this late hour are the contempt for the democratic procedures of the House and the anti-democratic behaviour exhibited by the shadow Home Secretary.
We have three tasks to undertake tonight. First, we must restore the proper democratic procedures of the House by passing the motion. Secondly, we must ensure not only that such behaviour is condemned but that the miscreants do not go unpunished.
Finally, on a point of parliamentary procedure, because of the anomaly as between Select Committees and Standing Committees, we should consider the introduction of new measures to ensure that never again will the procedures of the House be undermined by an Opposition who resort to breaking the rules of the House to have their way and to exert influence, because they cannot gain the support of the people through the ballot box.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) has got it wrong in a very big way. We are not in the Chamber this evening to discuss the behaviour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her colleagues; we are here because the Government are attempting to railroad through the House an extremely important and complex Bill in a way that shows utter contempt for the democratic procedures of the House.
Many years ago, when I was sitting on the Government Benches, I was so angry at the way the then Conservative Government were trying to guillotine a Bill that I walked out, saying that I would take no further part in the proceedings. At the time, I said that we should be careful about taking to ourselves powers that we do not want others to have. I commend that sentiment to the Minister of State and his hon. Friends. What we did in a minor way is being done in spades by the Labour Government—that lot opposite. It is quite disgraceful.

Mr. Charles Clarke: rose—

Sir Patrick Cormack: Before I give way, I will give the Minister something else to talk about. Last Monday, he appeared as the first witness before the new Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I am privileged to sit. We considered only one or two aspects of the Bill, but they showed—and the hon. Gentleman admitted in as many words—that the measure needs the most careful and detailed scrutiny. Indeed, he and I had a passage of arms over precisely what is meant by "quarrelsome" as distinct from "argumentative"—

Mr. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to talk about unreported evidence?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the evidence is unreported, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) should avoid talking about it.

Sir Patrick Cormack: If I have transgressed in any sense, I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister knows that what we said during that sitting of the Joint Committee shows that the Bill needs the most detailed scrutiny. However, not only will a whole section of the Bill receive no detailed scrutiny—it will receive no scrutiny at all.

Mr. Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that none of the issues we discussed in that Committee were guillotined and that they were all debated fully? Will he take this opportunity to condemn the activities of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and say that they were wrong and out of order?

Sir Patrick Cormack: That is not the point at issue tonight. The hon. Gentleman made a very belligerent speech from the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) adopted the advice given in Bardell v. Bardell in "Pickwick Papers"—weak case: abuse plaintiff's attorney. That is what he did this evening, and he has the good grace to laugh now. What we are really discussing this evening is the way in which the Government, without any regard for parliamentary propriety, seek to railroad Bill after Bill through the House with programme motions which are, in fact, guillotines in disguise.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Perhaps in a moment.
Few Members on either side of the House would have a legitimate argument against proper programming which gave proper time for all clauses in the Bill. When my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—a former shadow Leader of the House—and I briefly served on the Modernisation Committee, we made it plain, as did others, that we were prepared to discuss that proposal, but the Modernisation Committee has become the emasculation Committee; it is preventing the House from fulfilling its function. The prime function of the House is to subject to detailed and critical scrutiny measures introduced by the Executive, thereby holding the Executive to account.

Mrs. Beckett: Can the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that a similarly sized Bill was passed after half the number of sittings during the previous Parliament?

Sir Patrick Cormack: We are not debating that this evening; we are debating the way in which, time after time, the Government use a so-called programme motion as a guillotine—and use their massive majority, which is vastly in excess of the one we finished up with in the previous Parliament. The right hon. Lady should get the smile off her face and remember that she is, in fact, the Leader of the House; she has a responsibility to every Member to ensure that the procedures are properly followed.

Mr. Hope: rose—

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Patrick Cormack: No; I might give way later.
The right hon. Lady, for whom I have a high regard, is letting herself down very badly by putting her name to the motion. As Mr. Speaker said when he was in the Chair, it is a motion without precedent because we are being asked to deem something done which has not been done.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sir Patrick Cormack: I should like to develop my argument, then I may perhaps give way again.
We are being asked to say that the House has done something that it has not done. We are being asked to be parties to a collective parliamentary lie. We are being asked to say that something has happened which has not happened.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Sir Patrick cormack: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in his admirable speech, made it plain that that is what we are being asked to do.

Mr. Cook: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has been a Member for longer than I have, and he has a very good memory. He is basing his argument on the fact that some clauses have not even been read, let alone debated. I ask him to cast his mind back to the Hungerford tragedy and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which was introduced as a result—the Minister then responsible is present this evening—when 67 clauses, many of which went against commitments given in Committee and which would not be applicable to Northern Ireland, were introduced on Report and the Bill was guillotined not against the then Opposition, on whose Front Benches I sat, but against Conservative Members, because the then Government had to deal with their own hunting, shooting and fishing crowd, who were very much against the measure. So let us have none of the misrepresentation about such a motion being unique and having been introduced for the first time, because that is far from accurate.

Sir Patrick Cormack: That was a very inexact analogy. However, I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I have spoken out—my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhill (Mr. Shepherd) has done so even more than I have—against guillotines by whomsoever they have been introduced. My hon. Friend's record is without equal, but I have a reasonable record too in that regard. I have never liked the instrument. I am not seeking to defend what may or may not have been done in the past.

Mr. Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry, but I will not give way again.
The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. Labour Members are trying to rake up the embers of the past when we are concerned about the raging inferno of the present. We have a Government who are seeking to consign parliamentary procedures to the bonfire of their own vanity.
The motion is without precedent. We have never before in the history of Parliament had a Government who have come before the House and sought to persuade it to connive—I use my words deliberately and carefully—at the collective lie that something has been done that has not been done.

Dr. Ladyman: rose—

Mr. Miller: rose—

Sir Patrick Cormack: I will not give way.
We have not discussed the clauses and that is why the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was right, in his admirable speech, to concentrate on that aspect of the issue. As he rightly said, we are discussing the Government's motion, which is urging us to deem something to have happened that has not happened.
Labour Members may laugh, but if any one of them goes into the Lobby to support the motion, he or she will be denying his or her parliamentary heritage. Any Member who votes for the motion is, in fact, voting for the Executive against the legislature. Any Member who votes for the motion is voting for the emasculation of Parliament and what it stands for and must continue for stand for.
Any Member who votes for the motion is voting against a free Parliament in a free country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Labour Members may say that, but the Government have a massive majority. Of course, the real reason why we are being asked to accept the motion is that the Prime Minister—who has such a massive majority, who has 15 months of his mandate yet to run, who has, as he has readily told us many times, much unfinished business to do and who is now faced with a national calamity—now sees in the opinion polls what he believes to be a chance to renew his mandate. He will therefore rush anything through regardless of whether it is discussed or not.

Mr. Bercow: That is totally unacceptable.

Sir Patrick Cormack: As my hon. Friend says—but that is what the debate is all about.

Dr. Ladyman: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman deprecates what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) did, but that he is too loyal to say so. However, will he at least accept that if we do not take action of the type the Government have proposed, what the right hon. Lady did will become the norm and we shall never again get business through the House?

Sir Patrick Cormack: What arrant nonsense. If we vote as we should for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and his Friends, to which the Conservative party's Front-Bench spokesmen have attached their names, all that will happen is that Bill will receive adequate discussion and debate. That is what it must have and that is what it deserves. There will be no need for future protests. If the Leader of the House takes this lesson to heart, continues to hold her job and produces properly

negotiated programmes that give adequate opportunity for all parts of all Bills to be fully discussed, the problem will not arise again.
At this late hour, we face an important matter. In my 31 years in the House, never has Parliament faced such a serious transgression of its rights and privileges by the Executive, who are trying to prevent the legislature from holding them to account. They are behaving with a draconian ferocity that is usually found only in dictatorships. For that reason, it is incumbent on every lover of parliamentary democracy to go into the Lobby to support the amenment.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I am amazed at the general air of hypocrisy that is seeping from Conservative Benches. It stinks. Those of us who sat through the 1980s and saw the Government use their majority to push through the privatisation of gas, transport, electricity and the atomic weapons establishment can only cringe. I understand why some older Members have sat through our proceedings with a smile on their faces, but I also understand the bowel syndrome of new Members. Their constipated look of pain has been fed by the oracle, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who has suggested that something terrible is happening. It is a pretty awful scene. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he, too, understands the Conservatives' frustration—their bowel syndrome. However, I cannot bear to hear the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) bounce from pillar to post. He has more sides than an old thruppenny bit, which is typical of Liberal Democrats in action.
What happened last Thursday is regrettable, but the hon. Member for South Staffordshire should reflect on this thought: regardless of whether the Government were right or wrong to introduce a programme motion, they have a majority and the rules under which the Committee was to operate were set down. The Opposition have deliberately conspired to go against the wishes of the elected Parliament, but he should remember that the shoe is on Labour's foot, in the same way as it was on the Conservatives' foot in the 1980s—and, by gosh, did they use it. Talk about boots being made for walking—they walked over all semblance of democracy in the House and rammed through all the legislation that they wanted, so much so that someone said that a large majority might be bad for democracy. However, that is another argument. The Liberal Democrats will not like the system because they stand no chance of getting a majority.

Mr. Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers: No. The hon. Gentleman can speak for himself later.
Some sanctions must be applied. If we do not accept that, we cannot accept that the House is able to set the rules under which we operate.
From the swinging of the mace to the swinging in the trees, Opposition Members want to make Parliament a jungle. It has been pointed out that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) had a peerless record of standing against his own Government when he felt that something was wrong. I have such a record, but I cannot honestly see that any wrongdoing occurred in this case,


except that the official Opposition deliberately conspired to break the rules of the House. If they are allowed to get away with it, parliamentary democracy will go out of the window.

Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, but I am rather sorry that it is taking place at all. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who is a Whip, seeks to participate. Perhaps he will deviate further from procedure and speak in the debate as he is already having a stab at it.
We are debating not the conduct of particular Members but that of a Government who are prepared to deem that a Bill has been considered in Committee—

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brady: I cannot resist.

Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to condemn unreservedly the activities of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)?

Mr. Brady: I will take the opportunity to condemn unreservedly the arrogant contempt that the Minister and his colleagues show for the House. I shall express the strong views held by Conservative and, I am pleased to say, Liberal Democrat Members. We believe in parliamentary democracy, and the hon. Gentleman, as a Minister of the Crown, ought to have regard for Parliament and some understanding of why we were all sent here.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Brady: The Minister made a pathetic point the last time he intervened, so I shall not give way again. He and his colleagues must begin to understand that they are not here simply because of one day on which there was a general election—[Laughter.] Labour Members show how little they understand parliamentary democracy; it does not begin and end on the day of a general election.
We are sent here to do a job, not to be ciphers or delegates or to endorse the Labour manifesto, and even Labour Members frequently depart not only from the manifesto but increasingly from their pledge card. The essence of our job entails scrutiny of legislation and requires that all Members, even Labour Members, should devote their minds and their energy to considering the quality of legislation put before them in Committee. I have sat on Standing Committees and seen how rarely Labour Members do that. All Members have that obligation. The Government are prepared to ride roughshod over the rights of Members from all parties to perform that duty. In addition. I suspect that when we vote later this morning, Labour Members will simply accept this neutering of the role of Members of Parliament.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is not the situation even worse than that? Police morale is at rock bottom. The Minister of

State is responsible for police morale, yet he grins and keeps making inane points instead of saying why Members have not even discussed all the clauses that deal with the police.

Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently, and it will not be lost on members of police forces throughout the country that the Minister responsible for them is not prepared to allow parliamentary debate of matters relating to the police.

Mr. Heald: When I talked to the Police Federation about the matter this morning, its response was great dismay that discussion of whole clauses on which it wanted assurances was simply guillotined.

Mr. Brady: I am not surprised to hear that. The dismay of the Police Federation is mirrored not just by dismay but by cynicism and scepticism among the public, to which the Prime Minister has alluded. Is it any wonder that the electorate, whom we are meant to serve, hold the House of Commons in such low esteem, when it is clear that the Executive hold us in such low esteem and we are not permitted to do the job that we are sent here to do and raise our constituents' concerns?

Mr. Hogg: The position is even graver than my hon. Friend has said. It is not just that these clauses have not been discussed in Committee. Under the timetable motion that the House has passed, they cannot be discussed on Report or even, by implication, on Third Reading. There will not be enough time at those stages either, so they will never be discussed.

Mr. Brady: My right hon. and learned Friend has many more years' experience in the House than I have, but in my four years here I have seen the destruction of so much of the freedom and the power of the House of Commons that it appals me. It is frightening to contemplate what the Government are seeking to do: trying further to reduce the powers and the rights of the House of Commons to scrutinise legislation. In doing so, Ministers do a disservice not merely to the Opposition but to themselves, the House of Commons and to the office of Government.
Ultimately, the problem is not just that we will not be able to scrutinise the Government's legislation, or that the Police Federation and other interested bodies will not have their views expressed. As the Government have discovered so many times in the past few years, their all-too-shoddy legislation will not have the opportunity of scrutiny and, therefore, will not be improved by the consideration that it should receive in Committee. If Ministers had a little more humility and a little less arrogance, they might accept that Parliament has a genuinely important function in seeking to improve what the Government introduce. If a Government are not too arrogant to see that, they can benefit. An arrogant Government such as this will soon be discovered by the failures of their legislation.

Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman and I have been in the House for the same time, and I am trying to following his argument. Is he suggesting that the duty that he owes to people outside this House means that he has the right to override the House's rules and procedures in trying to fulfil that duty?

Mr. Brady: The Minister is trying hard but he is not doing very well. Surely the crucial point is that, when


the House behaves as a proper, functioning part of a free Parliament, procedural matters are dealt with broadly by agreement among all parties. This programming procedure manifestly does not have the support of the House of Commons. It has been forced through by the Executive, who object as a matter of principle to being held to account and do not like to face parliamentary scrutiny.
When the Executive are prepared to force their way in procedural matters and abuse the rights of the House of Commons, the procedure has less validity than when it is agreed properly by all parties. Ministers need to understand that if they are to ride roughshod over the interests of the House of Commons and ignore the rights of Back Benchers, and particularly the Opposition parties, they will lose. I happily give way to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). [Interruption.] I could have sworn that he wanted to make another entertaining contribution to the debate. I wish that he had been about to; I would have enjoyed it immensely.
Ministers must understand that if they abuse the rights of the House, seek to suppress debate and to prevent scrutiny of their legislation, overturn and disregard its procedures and instead impose procedures on it rather than gaining agreement for them, the House must fight to retain its independence. It must fight to have the right to scrutinise legislation. It must hold Ministers to account.

Mrs. Joan Humble: I shall speak only briefly because I do not want to delay the passage of the excellent Criminal Justice and Police Bill.
I was pleased to be asked to be a member of the Committee that was to scrutinise the Bill. I took my role seriously. We had hour after hour to debate the detail of the Bill. Extra sittings were made available to us to debate—

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Humble: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution later.
We had plenty of time to debate the detail of the Bill. Yet the Opposition have said explicitly that they are seeking to delay it. They admit that last week's extraordinary behaviour was deliberate. The message that my constituents will take from this evening's debate will not be about the detail of parliamentary procedure but about the fact that the Opposition want to delay the passage of legislation that they want to see on the statute book.
I remind the Opposition of an occasion in Committee when Conservative Members agreed with me. I pointed out the need to consult local communities when areas were to be designated by local authorities for the purpose of making illegal drinking in public places. The Opposition also agreed with my hon. Friend the Minister of State on other aspects of the Bill. Yet now they are trying deliberately to delay the passage of the Bill.
The message that I will take back to my constituents is that the Opposition do not want to support measures to give the police powers to control drunken behaviour; or measures to allow licensed premises where disorder is

taking place to be closed; or measures to limit the right of convicted drug traffickers to travel; or measures to protect workers who are engaged in legal employment. That is the message of the debate.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Humble: No, I will not.
My constituents want to see all those provisions enacted. They benefited from byelaws—

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Humble: Yes. I am a generous soul.

Mr. Heald: As the hon. Lady said, we did agree from time to time in Committee. Does she recall the Huntingdon Life Sciences new clauses, which were to be dealt with at the end of consideration of the Bill in Committee? That would have been the position if I had not moved that they should be brought forward. That was my idea, and it was accepted later by the Minister. Those new clauses would not have been brought forward if the order of consideration had remained the same.

Mrs. Humble: I remind the hon. Gentleman that several Members raised that issue in points of order. My hon. Friend the Minister listened to those points of order.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that at the first meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, and at all subsequent meetings, I said to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and to Members of other Opposition parties, in accordance with practice, that it was for the Opposition to determine the order of the amendments to be debated? When a proposal was made, I said that we would accept it immediately, and we did.

Mrs. Humble: I return to the point that I was making. In my constituency, Blackpool, we already have byelaws that cover some of the matters dealt with in the Bill, such as drinking in public places. Those byelaws have been extremely successful. The police welcomed them, as did the local community. However, that is a cumbersome way of dealing with an important issue. The Bill will enable many other local authorities to deal much more efficiently with the sorts of problems that we encountered in my constituency, with which the police are now dealing through byelaws. Unless the Bill is passed, other local authorities will not be able to do that without going through all the rigmarole of byelaws. My constituents want the Bill passed. The message that I shall take back after this debate is that the Opposition do not want that. Long may they stay in opposition, so that we shall have a Labour Government who will protect my constituents and deliver public safety.

Mr. John Townend: It is unusual for me to be in the House at this time of night, and it is even more unusual for me to try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, tonight is different. I am speaking because I am furious at the Government's action in putting before the House a motion that hits at the main purpose of the House, which is to give adequate line-by-line scrutiny to all legislation before us.
I believe that the motion proposed by the Minister is an abuse of power and undermines the power of Members of Parliament. The Government are asking us to accept that the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which has not been reported to the House, should be deemed to have been reported, even though 41 clauses, amounting to 85 pages of text, have not been discussed. That is particularly objectionable because this is a criminal justice Bill affecting individuals' rights before the courts.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Townend: In a minute. The Minister must be patient.
I shall point out just two items covered by the clauses that have not been discussed: inferences to be drawn from silence in police conduct proceedings, and courts to give reasons for granting opposed bail. Those are extremely important.
If I give way to the Minister, I hope that he will not ask me whether I condemn my colleagues on the Front Bench. I do not. I hope that the Minister will agree that the proposition that something should he deemed to have been done is a serious matter and would set a very serious precedent. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that such a motion will never be moved in respect of a Second Reading or a Third Reading?

Mr. Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason why the Committee's proceedings were not completed was the yobbish behaviour of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)? Will he condemn that behaviour?

Mr. Townend: The Minister does not seem to have been taught when he was a small boy that two wrongs do not make a right. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must tell the House that he is entitled to a respectful hearing, as is any hon. Member.

Mr. Townend: The Minister has forgotten that even if members of the Government think that Opposition Members have acted incorrectly, that is no justification for bringing before the House a motion that undermines the House and sets a precedent, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, by asking the House to accept a lie and to state that something has happened which has not happened.

Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If I accept his argument, will he tell me in return what he thinks would be the appropriate response of the House to gross disruptive behaviour that

was deliberately designed and organised to disrupt parliamentary procedure? What would be the appropriate way forward?

Mr. Townend: It is appropriate for the House to behave properly and send the Bill back to Committee.

Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Townend: No, let me answer your question first. You are setting a precedent—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member. He must use the correct parliamentary language.

Mr. Townend: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What point was the hon. Gentleman making?

Mr. McCabe: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I was asking what would be an appropriate response. He has kindly told the House that it would be appropriate to send the Bill back to Committee. What steps would he take to ensure that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her colleagues would not do exactly the same thing the minute the Bill went back to Committee?

Mr. Townend: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Can tpbell-Savours). There are numerous occasions on which such things have happened; Government Member;' objection is that, this time, instead of being organised by the Whips Office, as it probably was in the past, it was done openly and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) led from the front. Government Members are not objecting to the principle; they are objecting merely because those on our Front Bench were involved.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) asked what the answer is. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said, the Government have a large majority and ample time. They have another 15 months. My hon. Friends are talking about another two or three days. There is no need for the Government to rush into an election—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Hall Green may laugh, but I have a rural seat and, as all of the countryside is coming to a halt, it is strange that the Government are proposing to have an election and force things through. They have tabled a motion that sets a dangerous precedent.

Mr. Blunt: Of course, there is an answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). If the Bill went back into a Committee without an artificial timetable and deadline, the Committee would be able to take powers to tackle any disorder without our having to come to the House to deal with it. The deadline imposed by the Government is the cause of the entire problem.

Mr. Townend: As I said, this is not the first time that the Government have sidelined Parliament and reduced its powers. One reason why I decided to stand down at the election, even though my constituency party wanted me


to do another term, is that Parliament has been undermined. When I came here 22 years ago, I was proud of our unwritten constitution, monarchy and parliamentary democracy. Parliament was supreme; one Parliament could not bind the next. We did not have a supreme court; the people of this country were the supreme court, through their elected representatives in Parliament. If the courts did not interpret legislation correctly, Parliament could pass further legislation and impose its will on them.
Now, Parliament has lost that right. With the incorporation of human rights legislation in British law, we can be overruled by judges. Every day, more power is transferred to Europe—it is all part of the same programme, as has been brought home to me. To be fair, the previous Government allowed power to go to Europe. At that time, I remember fighting for my constituency, as a parliamentarian should. I have a fishing constituency; we persuaded the Government to stop quota hopping, and they passed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. They were overruled by the European Court of Justice and had to pay the Spaniards millions of pounds in damages.
It is worrying that more power has gone to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Eventually, it will go to the British regions. Parliament has been neutered—indeed, it has been castrated. What the Government are suggesting tonight is just another step in that process. That is very serious, and I do not want to be part of it.

Mr. Andrew Miller: It is extraordinary to consider, having heard the hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend), that only a week ago Conservative Members were putting forward exactly the opposite argument. They were seeking to argue, on Standing Orders issues, that it was appropriate that the House should bind a future Parliament. However, the hon. Gentleman now seems to be arguing a different point. [Interruption.] If he does not understand what I am saying, he should read the debates on procedural motions that have taken place in the House.
I understand the frustration of being on the Opposition Benches. I sat there for five years.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Gentleman might unwittingly have misled the House. He said that certain statements were made by hon. Members on this side of the House when they were not. Would he now like to say precisely when those statements were made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate.

Mr. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read Hansard, he will understand what I am saying.

Mr. Bercow: When?

Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman shouts "When?" from a sedentary position. With his photographic memory, all that he needs to do is get his photographs processed. Then he would understand.
I was saying that I understood the frustrations of being in Opposition. Five years was long enough for me. I understand even more the frustration of the Liberal Democrats. The frustration of sitting on their Bench must be absolutely enormous.
We must understand, looking back at the history of this place, that Governments get their business through and Oppositions try to amend it. Sometimes, in periods of great frustration, Oppositions fail to achieve that.
The Opposition—fragmented, split, and not understanding the will of the people of this nation—have failed to understand the golden offer given to them by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when she presented the changes with which we are now experimenting. The Opposition misunderstood the difference between time and timing. They have this daft idea that, by keeping things going for ever, they are going to convince members of the public of the wisdom of their way. Would not it be better if they used the opportunities in the Chamber and upstairs in Committee to use timing, like a good cricketer? A good cricketer can score more runs by using good timing than by stonewalling for ever.

Mr. Heald: I am not going to talk about cricket, even though the English team was so successful recently. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the Committee—in which the Minister said that there was time-wasting—the Chairman of the Committee said:
My view, and that of my co-Chairman, is that, to date, there has been no untoward or over-lengthy debate … we are dealing with intricate issues".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 February 2001; c. 199.]?
That is exactly the view put forward by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). This was not a case of time-wasting; this was simply a case of not having enough time to do the job.

Mr. Miller: If I had suggested that the hon. Gentleman was deliberately time-wasting in Committee, I would clearly have been out of line with the views of the Chairman of the Committee, and Mr. Deputy Speaker would quite rightly have called me to order. I was trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman in the Smoking Room the other day that if he looked at a Bill, as it was published, identified the parts on which he thought that the Government Front Bench was on shaky ground, and negotiated with the Leader of the House to ensure that those parts of the Bill had substantive examination on prime time television, he would get far more out of it. But no; as with many other Bills, the Opposition did not see the wisdom of that approach. The truth is that they have nothing to offer. They have no challenge to Ministers that they are even prepared to have exposed on prime time television. We are considering an issue of law and order.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but really the debate is about proper scrutiny of legislation, not prime time television. Does he think that every part of a Bill should be considered in Committee?

Mr. Miller: Members of the House and of the other place should ensure that, before they cast their vote on Report, they are satisfied that that which they are voting on meets the will of the House. I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman during his speech, but I thought


that, tactically, he was going down a dangerous route. He needs to understand that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which Ministers presented the issues, the bottom line must be that the House cannot accept hooligan behaviour. Democracy cannot be conducted in such a way.

Mr. Hogg: I put to the hon. Gentleman the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). In Committee, there are essentially two matters at stake: policy and the language used to reflect that policy. If the language of the statute is not right, that will cause immense problems in the courts and elsewhere. It is the business of a Committee to consider the language of each clause in order to perfect it, if perfecting it needs.

Mr. Miller: I would be more sympathetic to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's views if guillotine after guillotine had not fallen when I sat on the Opposition Benches. Those guillotines were operated by Conservative Members, including him. We are dealing with issues of law and order. I genuinely thought that all Members of the House wanted to stamp out the criminality, bad behaviour and anti-social behaviour that goes on throughout the nation. How can the nation accept leadership from the House if we accept hooligan behaviour?

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make such points, but they are not the central issue. Will he deal with that? Why do not the Government support the amendment? It would allow us to complete consideration in Committee and the Bill to complete all its stages. It would allow democracy and would prevent nothing. Let us leave to one side the punishment of people who may have disrupted the House, as I gather that another motion has been tabled for debate tomorrow. We can debate that matter another time.

Mr. Miller: I am not aware that such a motion has been tabled as I have not seen tomorrow's Order Paper, although I look forward to reading it. I may seek to amend the motion because I might not think that the proposed punishment is sufficient. [Laughter.] There is laughter, but the simple fact is that we need to set standards. We have sought to set standards in respect of football hooligans by preventing certain people from travelling to away matches. Perhaps that means that Opposition Front Benchers must not travel away to the Committee Corridor. We have introduced anti-social behaviour orders, which constrain people. We have considered introducing curfews. Those punishments may be appropriate.
The bottom line is that we cannot have one law for Members of the House, in any aspect of life, and another for private citizens. How can the nation be expected to work with us and the forces of law and order to improve standards in society if it is considered acceptable for an official Opposition to act in such a manner? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the programming of a Bill, I will not be drawn into the particular by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), because I was not on the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS:

"Ah."] That is a matter of record. As I was not on the Committee, I do not know precisely what people said to each other.
We must ensure that a Bill has adequate time. I raised the point on the Floor of the House in respect of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, because 14 out of 18 columns dealing with one of its clauses were taken up by an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. If we analyse the content of those 14 columns, we realise that only three columns dealt with the substance of the clause.

Mr. Bercow: Read them out.

Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman has a photographic memory, so I am sure that he can remember every one of his own words.

Dr. Ladyman: Would my hon. Friend take it from someone who was on the Committee that the constructive element of the Opposition's case, if it had been put by a private company and someone was paying the bill, would have been contracted into about 30 minutes?

Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend's recent, high-level experience in the private sector may legitimately lead him to that conclusion. As he was on the Committee, I accept his judgment.
The House must set standards. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her cohorts in this disruption have set standards that are unacceptable to the House and to a nation that is crying out for leadership on law and order. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is seeking to give that leadership, and any respectable Opposition would support him hook, line and sinker in his attempts to do so.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to make a short contribution to the debate. It is noticeable that Government Members have not addressed the motion. The problem is that the motion asks us to deem that black is white, and that something that ought to have happened, but which everyone in the House knows has not happened, has happened. That is why it is unprecedented and wrong, and we should not accept it.
The problem comes about because the Government have gone in for programme motions, pushed through with their large majority, that do not give sufficient time for an important Bill of this nature. The Government describe it as their flagship Bill, but they have allowed only 15 sittings for this important criminal justice legislation. I should like to compare that with the way in which the Conservative Government behaved when we put through important legislation. I shall give two examples of criminal justice legislation that I think are fair. The first is the Criminal Justice Act 1982, and the second is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I sat on both Committees—for obvious reasons, I had a close relationship with almost all the criminal justice legislation that went through in those 18 years.
The Criminal Justice Act 1982 set the scene, as everyone who follows the courts knows, for the


magistrates courts, the Crown courts and criminal justice powers for a generation. It had 45 clauses, was considered during 22 sittings, and went through at exactly this time of year, between January and the end of March. It went through as a result of sensible agreement. We did not sit late, we did not waste time, and we had a full debate.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Of course.

Mrs. Beckett: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman care to include in his example the Bill that became the Police Act 1997, debated in 1996–97? It was about the size of this Bill, and went through at the same time of year with half the number of sittings.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Let us consider my example for a moment. The Bill went through and was fully debated, and that could have happened in this instance.
I cited the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 because it started life as the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill 1983. Again, it was a highly important piece of legislation, which appeared in the run-up to the 1983 general election. It fell because, although it completed all its stages in the House in the early part of 1983, there was no time for it to go through the other place. It therefore did not become law.
Every Member present tonight must accept the overwhelming probability that this Bill, too, will not become law because there is likely to be a general election on 3 May. If that does not happen, there will be plenty of time for the Bill to be taken through the House properly; if it does, the Bill will fall. When we had the power, we allowed a reasonable and proper time, and that is what ought to be done now.

Mr. Straw: May I return the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the point put to him by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House? The 1983 example is a very poor one for the Opposition to use. It is true that we were in "oppositionist" mode in that year: we refused to agree to legislation going through in a truncated form before the election, although we broadly agreed with it. That is one of the reasons why we paid such a heavy price in the polls. [Interruption.] It is true. It is a matter of record.
Let me bring the right hon. and learned Gentleman up to date, and return him to 1996–97. The Police Bill to which my right hon. Friend referred was of a similar length to this Bill and similarly non-controversial, but it nevertheless required examination. It had much less examination in practice, and we agreed it. That strikes me as a far better precedent; why do the Opposition not follow it?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The difference between the Home Secretary and me is that I was a member of the Committee considering the 1983 Bill, while he was not. Yes, there was a good deal of opposition for opposition's sake on Labour's part, and Labour Members were wrong to do

that, but the 1983 Bill is not a good example. The debate was constructive, the Bill went through all its stages in the House of Commons, and it was scrutinised sensibly.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that I was a member of that Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) led for the Opposition. We had a constructive debate, which resulted in the enactment of the Bill. What would the right hon. and learned Gentleman have thought had my right hon. Friend led a sit down strike in the Committee?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: That is not the point. [Interruption.] Hold on a second: I will respond to the hon. Gentleman's intervention before returning to what I was saying.
Complaint is made about the manner of protests here, but the fact that a protest may transgress rules does not justify oppression if oppression has given rise to that protest. That argument would have been used against John Hampden, the Tolpuddle martyrs and Mr. Gandhi.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I was the Whip on the Committee considering the second Bill. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) asked what our reaction would have been to the intervention of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He would never have acted in that way because there was no timetable. The Committee ensured that there was adequate time for the Bill to be debated, so there was no reason, justification or need for such action.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. Both those Bills were properly scrutinised and, as I think that the whole House would agree, became good legislation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is it that after five interventions on the Police Act 1996, no Tory Member is prepared to address himself or herself to the questions that are being asked, which are very simple? In our consideration of the 1996 Act, 18 clauses and schedules were dealt with per sitting. In our consideration of this Bill, nine clauses and schedules are being dealt with per sitting. In other words, in 1996, under the Tory Government, twice as many provisions were considered per sitting. Rather than waffling, why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman address the specific issue of the 1996 Act?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have heard special pleading before, and I hear it from the hon. Gentleman now. Labour Members really have to make up their minds about the 1996 Act—are they saying that it was pushed through with or without adequate consideration? We are saying that this Bill—it cannot be denied—is not being adequately considered and that it is being pushed through unreasonably fast. I have participated in the Committee's consideration of the Bill, which has had 15 or 16 sittings.


If it had had about 22 sittings, it could have been perfectly adequately dealt with. If it could not have been so considered by the general election, it could have been reintroduced after the general election.
There are reasonable ways of dealing with these matters. It is not right that we have not had time to address really important issues such as the disclosure of material from the Inland Revenue to overseas Governments. Those issues have given rise to very sensible letters to all Committee members. Some of those letters, however,

arrived only the day before or on the very day on which we reached the aspects with which they deal. There has therefore been no time to deal with those aspects. The legislation is being handled badly.

Mr. McCabe: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Forgive me, but no.
This motion tries to say that black is white and it is a precedent that should not be followed. It should be opposed and defeated in the Lobby today.

Mr. Steve McCabe: As a Committee member, I should like to make just a couple of brief points. We are being told by the Opposition that it would be an outrage and disgraceful for Parliament to pass the motion. Perhaps I take an over-simplified view of these matters, but it seems to me that the reality is that there was a programme motion on which there was a vote. The Chairman often acknowledged that fact to the Committee. Earlier, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that the Opposition had agreed to an experimental programme motion.

Mrs. Browning: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. Conservative Members opposed the programme motion on principle and voted against it. We particularly opposed the programme motion for consideration of this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) tabled an amendment to that motion, but Labour Members voted against it, so the amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. McCabe: I am grateful. I must have misheard the hon. Lady. I thought that she said that the Opposition had agreed to the experiment although they had some reservations about it.
The point is that the events occurred with fewer than 10 minutes to go in the Committee's consideration of the Bill. After those 10 minutes had elapsed, the outstanding matters would have been guillotined regardless, putting us in exactly the same position as we are in now.
It is possible for experienced and honourable Conservative Members to huff and puff about the outrage and the affront. However, the reality is that we were within 10 minutes of the end of the Committee's proceedings—exactly the position that we are in now. At that point the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) chose to prevent that from happening by barging into the Committee and disrupting its procedures. That is what happened, no matter how it is dressed up or described. We should not delude ourselves about what actually happened.
Whether Conservative Members liked it or not, the programme motion had been put to a vote—the Chairman reminded them of that on numerous occasions in Committee. We had reached the stage at which the Committee had run out of time, and we would have guillotined the outstanding items. However, we were prevented from doing so because of the actions of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.

Jackie Ballard: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman appeared to have reservations about some aspects of the Bill. Does he think that adequate time was given for proper consideration of all the 132 clauses as well as the new clauses? If not, will he vote for the amendment tonight?

Mr. McCabe: First, let me say that I thought that the hon. Lady's contribution in Committee was extremely helpful. She was very constructive in her opposition.
To answer her question, I thought that when members of the Committee turned their attention to the content of

the Bill and the issues of substance that it contains, there was effective scrutiny. As she knows, there were matters on which I and others had reservations. I felt that my hon. Friend the Minister did his level best to take on board many of those reservations. The record of the Committee's proceedings show numerous examples of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) thanking the Minister for the consideration that he gave to the objections cited. My view is that when the Committee turned its attention to the substance of the Bill, scrutiny was ideal.
The difficulty is the amount of time that was wasted, a point which the official Opposition cannot escape. We had numerous references to and complaints about the programme motion, despite the fact that the Chairman made it plain what his ruling was and that he did not want to pursue the matter further. We had a lengthy debate on whether the term "British islands" should be in the Bill. At the end of that debate, we discovered that that term had been in use since 1978. No Conservative Member had chosen to table an amendment challenging those words in any piece of legislation that had gone through the House since 1978, yet they spent at least an hour debating whether "British islands" was an appropriate term. What that has to do with the police or the criminal justice system in this country, I do not know.
There were lengthy references to the "Dangerfield" television programme regarding the use of samples and whether a doctor or a registered nurse might be the appropriate person to take a sample. It is worth right hon. and hon. Members hearing about the effective scrutiny to which the Bill was sometimes subject. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) told us:
I was especially interested in the series because a great deal of its filming took place in and around the courts where I practised. The Parliamentary Secretary is not with us at the moment, but he was also on that circuit. Much of the filming was done in and around towns such as Warwick, and the exteriors of real police stations were quite often used. It was a successful series with a wide and large audience, and doubtless there is now greater appreciation of the serious risks that sometimes face not only officers but police doctors".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 8 March 2001; c. 602.]
That added a great deal to the scrutiny of the Bill.

Mr. Stunell: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to argue that two wrongs make a right? Is he entirely happy with that argument?

Mr. McCabe: Either I am doing a very bad job of explaining myself or the hon. Gentleman is not hearing me properly. I am making the point that it is not a question of two wrongs making a right; there was a vote on a programme motion and, as is normal, we accepted the ruling of that vote and the ruling of the Chair. It was only when the Opposition realised that they were not going to have their way—after deliberately wasting time throughout the Committee's proceedings—that they chose to use a further parliamentary, or non-parliamentary, device. Those were the actions of a flying picket—an attempt to block our legitimate procedure. That is not a question of two wrongs.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall not ask the hon. Gentleman to give his views on flying pickets in public.
Putting aside the people involved, does the hon. Gentleman agree that what happened on Thursday was that Members of the House used a tactic open to any Member to try to prevent the fulfilment of the timetable? It was just as proper a tactic to try as any other. In the event, it has brought us to the Chamber tonight. However, whether or not the Committee stage is guillotined, that does not answer the question why we should not go back to finish the Bill's Committee proceedings.

Mr. McCabe: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's views, but he is fundamentally wrong on this matter. Whatever his view, he knows that if that spectacular intervention had not taken place—with less than 10 minutes to go—the Bill would properly have completed its proceedings. The hon. Gentleman may have disagreed with the manner in which the procedure was organised, but that would have been the outcome. The only reason that did not happen was that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was unhappy about it.
The Opposition freely admit that they had used all the normal procedures of the House to try to prevent the Bill's proceedings. Not content with the outcome and unprepared to accept the judgment of the House. they decided to ignore that judgment and to take another course of action. If we were to take the position advocated by the hon. Gentleman—to go back to the point at which the right hon. Lady disrupted the Committee's proceedings—I have no confidence that, as soon as something occurred that the Opposition were not happy about, they would once again dispense with parliamentary rules and go back to the same bullying tactics. That is how they are prepared to behave.

Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I understand the point that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is trying to make. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the danger with the course of action for which the hon. Gentleman argues is that it creates an incentive for people to repeat conduct that we all deplore?

Mr. McCabe: It would be difficult to arrive at any other conclusion. That is exactly what would happen. It appears that we are being told that the House can vote and take decisions on procedure, but that at any point when the Opposition lose a vote—fairly and squarely—and are unhappy about it, they can tear up the rule book. We are being asked to agree that if they take such actions, we should go back to square one and let them do it again. For the life of me, I cannot see the sense of that.
Tonight, as my constituents in Hall Green look at the broken glass outside rowdy pubs or wonder what is happening down the street, not many of them would be too happy if we let offenders have a second chance.
Earlier, we talked about police morale. The morale of the police officers whose pensions would have been sanctioned by the provisions in the Bill that we were due to discuss will not have been particularly reinforced by the actions we witnessed on Thursday—especially if we

are not allowed to complete our proceedings. The decision to prevent us from reinstating the rank of chief superintendent—that reinstatement was largely supported by the vast majority of police officers—will not necessarily boost police morale; the police have been asking for that reinstatement for years.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's account of the proceedings of the Committee, although I am not sure that his description of the antics of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) as "spectacular" is appropriate. Does he agree that those events demonstrate not only the need for the programming of legislation but that perhaps we need more effective programming to ensure that all the important parts of a Bill are debated?

Mr. McCabe: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. We are still in an experimental phrase, and we need to learn from the experiment. I am sure that improvements can be made.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCabe: Not just now, thanks.
Undoubtedly, improvements can be made, but the bottom line remains that there must be good will and good faith on both sides when we enter into any experiment. We must believe that having voted for something, other hon. Members will respect that decision. We must also believe that the time made available will be used constructively. Let us not hear lengthy discussions about the British islands, the "Dangerfield" television series, the virtues of Mr. Matthew Gullick—the son of a High court judge and a junior Conservative party researcher, who is paid to write amendments occasionally. If we have to listen to his suggestions and those of his colleagues being read into the record—

Mr. Heald: Matthew Gullick—a Conservative researcher—was mentioned because the Government accepted three of the amendments that he drafted. Should he not have been mentioned? He did rather well.

Mr. McCabe: It is perfectly true that Matthew Gullick was mentioned on day one, when the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that the score was three nil. He was mentioned the following day. On the third day, the Chairman of the Committee said that he need not be mentioned again. That certainly was three nil.
If there is time wasting, inevitable repetition and less focus on the content it ill becomes anyone to talk about having insufficient time to scrutinise the Bill. As I said at the outset, I welcomed Opposition Members' efforts when they turned their attention to the content. It is an important Bill and there have been important issues to discuss, but it is too late to bleat about running out of time when the time available has been used for everything but consideration of the Bill. To block the Bill by the outrageous behaviour that we witnessed on Thursday, involving discourtesy to the police and the Chairman of the Committee, and then to say tonight that the motion it is an outrage to parliamentary democracy beggars belief.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The motion seeks to do two things. First. it states that the
Bill shall be deemed to have been reported to the House, as amended by the Committee, and as if those Clauses and Schedules the consideration of which had not been completed by the Committee had been ordered to stand part of the Bill".
Secondly, it states:
with the outstanding Amendments which stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Charles Clarke.
The Minister's amendments—no one else's—will be deemed to have been discussed, so a clear distinction has been made.
Why am I concerned about the motion? It does not take any great feat of imagination to think that it reinvents history. Four days ago, the House failed to do something. The Government have moved a motion that states that it has done something. Stalin rewrote history. I am concerned about the rewriting of history by deeming things to have happened that have not—because what else can be deemed to have happened?
A Minister of the Crown could say that he deems that the Bill has completed all its stages. That is why Mr. Speaker said, when sitting in the Chair, that the motion was without precedent. That is why it is very serious. The Minister's belligerence made me think that he was nervous about the case that he was presenting.
The motion and the amendment test the Government's response. The Bill has not been debated properly. If it reports back to the House under a guillotine, it will be smuggled back to us outside the attention of the wider world and large parts of will remain undiscussed. The Opposition's protests are designed to show that the House must now consider the consequences of the Committee's reporting that it had been unable to complete the Bill's consideration.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shepherd: Not just yet. The Government have been presented with two choices. They could have done what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested and the Bill could have been returned to Committee with sufficient time to discuss the 42 amendments that have not yet been debated. The Government did not choose that route. They chose to table this motion. They are saying that what they say is the law. The Government ate not suggesting that we should debate the issues in the way that has been offered by the Liberal Democrats, who have been supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. The Government motion, in effect, says, "What we say shall he the law."
The issue of majorities is a theme that has haunted the new Labour Government. Within four years, they have reached for the old Stalinist trick of putting on the Order Paper—[Interruption.] Government Members may laugh, but the Order Paper now suggests that what is not true is true. That is what the House is being asked to say. Each one of us must consider where that leaves us. What are we being reduced to? [Interruption.] I agree with that point about the poll tax. I do not think that guillotines

should be thrown around in the way they have been. My concern about the Bill is deeper. I wonder how we have come to this pass.
The motion has been tabled under the name of the Leader of the House and is supported by the Home Secretary. The Leader of the House does not even deign to "deem" in person and the Home Secretary, whose Bill it is, has not yet spoken. Standards are changing. The Government are becoming so grand that, in less than four years, they insist that they should have a Bill under their own timetable even though there is always a rhythm to a Bill.
Sessional Order (b) was accepted on 7 November 2000 and it lies behind these problems. Despite the objections of the Opposition parties and individuals, a majority determined that the Government should be given the power to guillotine every Bill. However, we have debates of only 45 minutes to discuss these matters. What has been the consequence? Every Bill that has been guillotined—that is, every Bill this Session—has been opposed by those on the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benches. Can we now talk about a Government who seek acquiesence and government by consent? Not a bit of it.
The Leader of the House is almost the Caligula of the House. She insists on things that are not true and is trying to bring about a culture change. If the House is to give authority to a Government and their actions, its whole purpose is to debate their actions. How else can they seek consent and attest to the fact that the issues have been considered?
We are now telling ourselves that we are redundant. If every Minister can deem, with a majority behind him, that something has happened, we can cut out the process of debate and transfer the business to the other end of the Palace. The reformed or unreformed House of Lords will become pre-eminent. That is the cause of our anger. A process has been forced through by the Modernisation Committee, which has not listened with the necessary tolerance to other views. Steam is now building up in a Chamber that has no exits or valves to allow it to be released.
How do I make representations to the Government? How do those on the Opposition Front Benches even begin to negotiate with the Government as to how to consider each part of a Bill? The Modernisation Committee has prattled on about holding the Government to account, but do the most important people—the majority in the House—hold the Government account? All they are doing is marching through the Lobby to support the cutting off of the historic role of Parliament.
Even this debate is being held at 1.24 am. The Government, confident and secure of their affection in the opinion polls, think that such matters are not important and that the public do not care. That is not the issue. Vasari once said something important. Why was it, he reflected, that the Florentines had reached a particular level of excellence in the arts? His response was that it related to the spirit of criticism: the brutality of the critical approach ensured that the second rate could not survive.
The spirit of criticism is essential to the way in which the House has always done its business. No one can be under any illusion about what the Government are arguing for, but the second rate cannot survive in such a system. Yet as we close down all the hatches for reasonable and


detailed investigation of how the law bears down on each one of us, we sink into the mediocrity exhibited by the Labour Front Bench. It is not dignified.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend mentions the other place. Not content with neutering this House, Lord Falconer will tomorrow propose a motion to instruct a Committee of the whole House
to whom the Hunting Bill has been committed, that, notwithstanding the normal practice of the House in Committee, no amendments be considered except any amendments to leave out clause 1 … and insert a new clause".
Is he aware that the Government are now also working on the other place, which appears to be the only forum for real debate?

Mr. Shepherd: I am sure that the other place will address the issue tomorrow in the appropriate form. However, I am concerned with the motion before the House, which directly affects the only democratically elected body in Parliament. Each of us has been sent here to represent someone. We are all equal in those terms. That is why the Government have become second rate. No Government could table such a motion. Never before have a Government have sought to say that the House of Commons has considered a Bill when it has not. They say that our right to ask them what they mean, what something is about and whether it can be amended is just part of an arcane principle.
It is not just me, on my own, opposing the guillotine. The entire Opposition oppose it. The Government should reflect on that. The motion should not be before the House. As the Government, and the Leader of the House in particular, know, this inconvenience is the result of the imposition of their will on the Opposition. If we punch someone, he responds.
I regret that that is the state of affairs. Even Mr. Attlee's Government of 1945, which was far more radical than this Government, except in constitutional matters, did not act in such a way. Most of us are beneficiaries of some of the profound social changes that that Government introduced, but they needed only three guillotines. My right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher presided over a major radical Government, from whom the mediocre bunch on the Labour Front Bench inherited the economy. In 11 years, she used fewer guillotines than this new Labour Government have imposed in under four years. It is an extraordinary record. One wonders, on reflection, how any business was ever conducted in the House in those days.
By trying to meet a 10 o'clock rule, the Government have ensured that the House sits later because of the principled opposition of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives to this systematic guillotining of Bills after Second Reading without knowing where the opposition to them lies or what debate is needed. They assign an odd number of days that, by their divinity, they have chosen as appropriate for discussion.
The House would work much better if it returned to the situation prior to the introduction of these new Standing Orders and if the Government had the necessary tolerance. However impatient a Government may be, they must occasionally listen to the contrary view. Each of us is now regularly prevented from speaking, and then the

Government chant at us, "But it is the will of the majority that you shall not speak, and we were elected as a majority." I have always been against that attitude. As Burke said, and as I have said enough times in the House, a Government seek not just acquiescence; they seek consent. They do so not by dividing x by 2 plus 1 but through the process of allowing each of us the opportunity to speak on behalf of our constituents. That is what lies behind the motion.
In truth, Labour Members should reflect on why they came here. Their purpose is to represent and speak up for their constituents' interests. No one doubts that their support is for a Labour Government, but nothing is divine. We have to subject the propositions of Government to criticism. Without that, they will remain as they are—arrogant and mediocre.

Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 240. Noes 142.

Division No. 144]
[1.32 am


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Colman, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Cooper, Yvette



Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corston, Jean


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cox, Tom


Atkins, Charlotte
Cranston, Ross


Austin, John
Crausby, David


Bailey, Adrian
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Barnes, Harry
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bayley, Hugh
Cummings, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Darvill, Keith


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benton, Joe
Denham, Rt Hon John


Berry, Roger
Dismore, Andrew


Best, Harold
Dobbin, Jim


Betts, Clive
Donohoe, Brian H


Blackman, Liz
Dowd, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Drew, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradshaw, Ben
Edwards, Huw


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Efford, Clive


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Ennis, Jeff


Browne, Desmond
Etherington, Bill


Buck, Ms Karen
Fisher, Mark


Burgon, Colin
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Date
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caton, Martin
Foulkes, George


Cawsey, Ian
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gerrard, Neil



Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clwyd, Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coleman, Iain
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)






Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Olner, Bill


Healey, John
O'Neill, Martin


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hepburn, Stephen
Pearson, Ian


Heppell, John
Perham, Ms Linda


Hill, Keith
Pike, Peter L


Hinchliffe, David
Plaskitt, James


Hoey, Kate
Pond, Chris


Home Robertson, John
Pope, Greg


Hope, Phil
Pound, Stephen


Hopkins, Kelvin
Prentice Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Prosser, Gwyn


Humble, Mrs Joan
Purchase, Ken


Hurst, Alan
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Hutton, John
Quinn, Lawrie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Rammell, Bill


Illsley, Eric
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Jamieson, David



Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Roy, Frank


Jowell,Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Ruane, Chris


Joyce Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Savidge, Malcolm


Kilfoyle, Peter
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Skinner Dennis


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lammy, David
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Leslie, Christopher
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)



Lock, David
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McCabe, Steve
Snape, Peter


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Soley, Clive


McDonagh, Siobhain
Southworth, Ms Helen



Spellar, John


Macdonald, Calum
Squire, Ms Rachel


McDonnell, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McFall, John
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McIsaac, Shona
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


McNulty, Tony
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McWalter, Tony
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWilliam, John



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Martlew, Eric
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maxton, John
Thomas, Gareth R (Clwyd W)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Meale, Alan
Timms, Stephen


Merron, Gillian
Tipping, Paddy


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Todd, Mark


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Touhig, Don


Miller, Andrew
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Tynan, Bill


Morley, Elliot
Walley, Ms Joan


Mudie, George
Ward, Ms Claire


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Watts, David


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
White, Brian


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Whitethead, Dr Alan


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Williams;, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


O'Hara, Eddie






Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Worthington, Tony
Mrs. Anne McGuire.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Keetch, Paul


Amess, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lansley, Andrew


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Letwin, Oliver


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Baldry, Tony
Lidington, David


Ballard, Jackie
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Loughton, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Luff, Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brand, Dr Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Brazier, Julian
Maples, John


Breed, Colin
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
May, Mrs Theresa


Browning, Mrs Angela
Moss, Malcolm


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Nicholls, Patrick


Burnett, John
Norman, Archie


Burns, Simon
Oaten, Mark


Butterfill, John
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Ottaway, Richard



Page, Richard


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Paice, James



Pickles, Eric


Chope, Christopher
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Prior, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Randall, John


Collins, Tim
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Rendel, David


Cotter, Brian
Robathan, Andrew


Cran, James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Duncan, Alan
Ruffley, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Evans, Nigel
St Aubyn, Nick


Fabricant, Michael
Sanders, Adrian


Fallon, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Flight, Howard
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Shepherd, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Fraser, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Garnier, Edward
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gibb, Nick
Spring, Richard


Gidley, Sandra
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Steen, Anthony


Gorrie, Donald
Stunell, Andrew


Gray, James
Swayne, Desmond


Green, Damian
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Hayes, John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Heald, Oliver
Townend, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tredinnick, David


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tyler, Paul


Horam, John
Walter, Robert


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Whittingdale, John


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Wilkinson, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Willetts, David






Willis, Phil
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Stephen Day and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Owen Paterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 240.

Division No. 145]
[1.44 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hayes, John


Amess, David
Heald, Oliver


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Horam, John


Ballard, Jackie
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bercow, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Blunt, Crispin
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Keetch, Paul


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brady, Graham
Lansley, Andrew


Brand, Dr Peter
Letwin, Oliver


Brazier, Julian
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Breed Colin
Lidington, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Loughton, Tim


Burnett, John
Luff, Peter


Burns, Simon
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Butterfill, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Maclean, Rt Hon David



McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Clappison, James
Maples, John


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Collins, Tim
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Cotter, Brian
Nicholls, Patrick


Cran, James
Norman, Archie


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Oaten, Mark


Day, Stephen
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Duncan, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Page, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Fallol, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Flight, Howard
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Prior, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Randall, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman



Fraser, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Rendel, David


Gibb, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Gidley, Sandra
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gorrie, Donald
Ruffley, David


Gray, James
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Green, Damian
St Aubyn, Nick


Grieve, Dominic
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shepherd, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)


Hawkins, Nick
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)





Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Walter, Robert


Spicer, Sir Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Steen Anthony
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Swayne, Desmond
Wilkinson, John


Syms, Robert
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Willis, Phil


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Yeo, Tim


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Townend, John



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trend, Michael
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Adrian Sanders.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Cummings, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Dalyell, Tarn



Darvill, Keith


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Atkins, Charlotte
Denham, Rt Hon John


Austin, John
Dismore, Andrew


Bailey, Adrian
Dobbin, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H


Bayley, Hugh
Dowd, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Drew, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Edwards, Huw


Bennett, Andrew F
Efford, Clive


Benton, Joe
Ennis, Jeff


Berry, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Best, Harold
Fisher, Mark


Betts, Clive
Filzpatrick, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Blizzard, Bob
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foulkes, George


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond
Gerrard, Neil


Buck, Ms Karen
Godsiff, Roger


Burgon, Colin
Goggins, Paul


Butler, Mrs Christine
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Grocott, Bruce


Caton, Martin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cawsey, Ian
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clapham, Michael
Healey, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)



Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate


Clwyd, Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hope, Phil


Coleman, Iain
Hopkins, Kelvin


Colman, Tony
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cooper, Yvette
Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stratford)


Corbett, Robin
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corston, Jean
Hurst, Alan


Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Crausby, David
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jamieson, David






Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Raynsford Nick


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Jones, Martyn (Ctwyd S)



Joyce, Eric
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rooney, Terry


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roy, Frank


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruane, Chris


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ruddock, Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lammy, David
Ryan, Ms Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Sarwar, Mohammad


Levitt, Tom
Savidge Malcolm


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lock, David
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Fit Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Macdonald, Calum



McDonnell, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McFall, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McIsaac, Shona
Snape, Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Southworth, Ms Helen


McNulty, Tony
Spellar, John


Mactaggart, Fiona
Squire, Ms; Rachel


McWarter, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McWilliam, John
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Maxton, John
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Merron, Gillian



Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Michie, Bill (shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Miller, Andrew
Temple—Morris, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Timms, Stephen


Morley, Elliot
Tipping, Paddy


Mudie, George
Todd, Mark


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


O'Hara, Eddie
Tynan, Bill


Olner, Bill
Walley, Ms Joan


O'Neill, Martin
Ward, Ms Claire


Organ, Mrs Diana
Watts, David


Pearson, Ian
White, Brian


Perham, Ms Linda
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pike, Peter L
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Plaskitt, James



Pond, Chris
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pope, Greg
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Pound, Stephen
Winnick, David


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Purchase, Ken
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 142.

Division No. 146]
[1.57 am


Ayes


Ainger, Nick
Etherington, Bill


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna



Flint, Caroline


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Flynn, Paul


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Atkins, Charlotte
Foulkes, George


Austin, John
Gapes, Mike


Bailey, Adrian
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Barnes, Harry
Gerrard, Neil


Bayley, Hugh
Godsiff, Roger


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Goggins, Paul


Begg, Miss Anne
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Benton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce


Berry, Roger
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Best, Harold
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Belts, Clive
Healey, John


Blackman, Liz
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Blizzard, Bob
Hepburn, Stephen


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Heppell, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hill, Keith


Bradshaw, Ben
Hinchliffe, David


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hoey, Kate


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Home Robertson, John


Browne, Desmond
Hope, Phil


Buck, Ms Karen
Hopkins, Kelvin


Burgon, Colin
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cann, Jamie
Hurst, Alan


Caton, Martin
Hutton, John


Cawsey, Ian
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clapham, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Clwyd, Ann
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Coffey, Ms Ann
Joyce, Eric


Coleman, Iain
Keeble, Ms Sally


Colman, Tony
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cooper, Yvette
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Corbett, Robin
Kilfoyle, Peter


Corston, Jean
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Cox, Tom
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Cranston, Ross
Lammy, David


Crausby, David
Leslie, Christopher


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Levitt, Tom


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Cummings, John
Lock, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Dalyell, Tarn
McCabe, Steve


Darvill, Keith
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Macdonald, Calum


Denham, Rt Hon John
McDonnell, John


Dismore, Andrew
McFall, John


Dobbin, Jim
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Donohoe, Brian H
McIsaac, Shona


Drew, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McNamara, Kevin


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McNulty, Tony


Edwards, Huw
Mactaggart, Fiona


Efford, Clive
McWalter, Tony


Ennis, Jeff
McWilliam, John






Mahon, Mrs Alice
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Merron, Gillian



Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michie, Bill (shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Moran, Ms Margaret
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Spellar, John


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mudie, George
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Tortaen)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Hara, Eddie
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Olner, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pearson, Ian



Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Plaskitt, James
Temple—Morris, Peter


Pond, Chris
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pope, Greg
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pound, Stephen
Timms, Stephen


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Todd, Mark


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prosser, Gwyn
Twigg, Derek (Harton)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Tynan, Bill


Quinn, Lawrie
Walley, Ms Joan


Rammell, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire


Raynsford, Nick
Watts, David


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Roy, Frank
Winnick, David


Ruane, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sarwar, Mohammad
Mr. Don Touhig and


Savidge, Malcolm
Mr. Jim Dowd.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael



Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Baldry, Tony
Chope, Christopher


Ballard, Jackie
Clappison, James


Bercow, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Collins, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Cotter, Brian


Boswell, Tim
Cran, James


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Duncan, Alan


Brady, Graham
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brand, Dr Peter
Evans, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Fabrbant, Michael


Breed, Colin
Fallon, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Flight, Howard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burnett, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burns, Simon
Fraser, Christopher





Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gidley, Sandra
Prior, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Randall, John


Gorrie, Donald
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gray, James
Rendel, David


Green, Damian
Robathan, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Ruffley, David


Hammond, Philip
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hawkins, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Hayes, John
Sanders, Adrian


Heald, Oliver
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Shepherd, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Horam, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Spring, Richard


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Steen, Anthony


Jenkin, Bernard
Stunell, Andrew


Keetch, Paul
Swayne, Desmond


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Syms, Robert


Lansley, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lidington, David
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Townend, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tredinnick, David


Loughton, Tim
Trend, Michael


Luff, Peter
Tyler, Paul


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Walter, Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Whittingdale, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Malins, Humfrey
Wilkinson, John


Maples, John
Willetts, David


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Willis, Phil


May, Mrs Theresa
Wilshire, David


Moss, Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Norman, Archie
Yeo, Tim


Oaten, Mark
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Page, Richard
Mr. Stephen Day and


Paice, James
Mr. Owen Paterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That, following the Report of the Chairman of Standing Committee F on 9th Match, the Criminal Justice and Police Bill shall be deemed to have been reported to the House, as amended by the Committee, and as if those Clauses and Schedules the consideration of which had not been completed by the Committee had been ordered to stand part of the Bill, with the outstanding Amendments which stood on the Order paper in the name of Mr. Charles Clarke.

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, and pursuant to Order [this day], to be considered this day.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 February],
That the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if they related to instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118


(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)

Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
Line 31, at end add—
'( ) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
( ) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
( ) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Cromer Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. David Prior: It is a great pleasure to have the chance to debate the redevelopment of Cromer hospital—a pleasure that might be slightly diminished by the fact that it is 2.15 am, but a great pleasure none the less.
The first Cromer cottage hospital was established in Louden road in 1886. It was funded by local people, as were all subsequent additions and improvements. In 1932, it moved to its current site, and it was taken over by the national health service in 1948. However, the tradition of local involvement, personal donations and local fundraising activities has remained a hallmark of Cromer hospital to this day. The friends of the hospital are a dedicated and hard-working organisation, raising thousands of pounds a year and ensuring that the local community enjoys a close involvement with the hospital.
The atmosphere in the hospital reflects that close involvement. It is happy, friendly, relaxed, welcoming and caring. This is a genuine community hospital, and it is essential that, whatever its future development, its character is preserved. I have spoken to a great many people over the last few years—patients, and people who have known the hospital for years—who have praised it and its staff for the care and love that they devote to it. The hospital can be proud that it stands for all that is best in the great vocational tradition of the health service, but it stands for something else as well: it is a 1930s building, which has been added to piecemeal ever since.
A report prepared by Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS trust, of which Cromer hospital is a part, stated in 1998:
Facilities within the Hospital are not efficiently organized.
Accessibility to critical areas is hindered by the current configuration.
Parking is increasingly a problem.
Entrance to the hospital grounds is narrow and makes access difficult.
The current facilities at Cromer are old, ill maintained and not best suited to modern medicine. The building requires substantial investment to meet the minimal requirements of relevant statutory regulations and it is likely that increasingly large amounts of investment will be required in the future as the buildings age and deteriorate further. Current estimates of the potential cost of carrying out the backlog of maintenance required at Cromer put the cost as high as £2.2 million over the next three years in order for the hospital to meet its statutory obligations for health and safety.
The report continues:
The two wards currently cater for patients of varying ages and recovering from various ailments. This situation is by no means ideal as providing care on this basis greatly increases the risk of cross infection. At present strict procedures are in place for disease management in order to minimize this risk requiring extra resources for disease management.
In many ways, therefore, Cromer hospital is a symbol of the NHS: it has outstanding and caring staff supported by the community, but working with substandard


facilities. For those reasons, since 1994 Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS trust has generally accepted that Cromer hospital should be substantially redeveloped. The recent dedicated cataract surgery and gastroenterology services are examples of the trust's commitment to that.
In July 2000, a resident of Cromer, Mrs. Sagle Bernstein, died, leaving Cromer hospital a fantastically generous legacy of £10 million. The trustees of the legacy are the board of Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS trust. To avoid any misunderstandings, I wish to state unambiguously, first, that no NHS funding will be lost as a result of that legacy. The legacy must be additional to NHS funds.
Secondly, the legacy and all the accumulated interest are for the benefit of Cromer hospital; that will not be siphoned off for use elsewhere in the health service. That has been confirmed to me by the chief executive of the acute trust. I hope that the Minister will confirm those two vital points in her reply, as I know that that would go a long way to putting at rest the minds of many of those who live in Cromer.
That incredibly generous bequest allows the trust to create a world-class hospital in Cromer. It means that we can now look forward for the next 100 years, not only the next two or three. It also allows the nursing, clinical, caring and community traditions of Cromer hospital to be allied to world-class facilities, operations and resources. It is an opportunity that I as the Member of Parliament for North Norfolk am determined to see grasped.
The acute trust and the primary care group in north Norfolk have promised that they will deliver a business plan by the end of March 2001, setting out their joint agreed proposals for the future. It will bring together primary care, intermediate care, elderly rehabilitation and acute care. It will also need to take into account the location of the general practitioner's surgery in Cromer and the rehabilitation facilities currently located at Benjamin court, in Cromer, as well as the acute services.
It is generally agreed that all the existing services in the hospital will be retained and enhanced with major expansion in ophthamology, dermatology, endoscopy, cardiology, diagnostics, maternity services, diabetics, eurology—including a service for stroke victims—renal dialysis, minor surgery and post-operative cancer treatment. That is not a comprehensive list; nor would it be appropriate for me to submit one as I am not a clinician. By the end of March, however, there will be agreement between the primary care group and the acute trust on what should be included.
There must also be proper consultation with the community. It is essential that the deadline, at the end of March, is adhered to, so that local people feel that, after so many years of uncertainty, progress is at last being made.
Some 35,000 to 40,000 people in North Norfolk are over 65. By 2011, the number is predicted to increase by 20 per cent. That will lead to increased demand for intermediate care services, day care, rehabilitation and out-patient services. It is essential, therefore, that the plans for the hospital take those requirements into account. Cromer should become a centre of excellence for the treatment of older people, with intensive physio and

occupational therapy services such as hydrotherapy. I support also the provision of general practitioner community beds in the new hospital.
A few years ago, when the acute trust drew up its plans, it was looking at Cromer primarily as a satellite of the Norfolk and Norwich. That has changed. Rightly, the future of Cromer hospital requires an integrated approach from primary care through to rehabilitation. That may mean that the current site is not large enough or adequate and that alternative sites in Cromer will have to be investigated. If so, I am that sure that the district council will be supportive. A new state-of-the-art hospital could play a major part in the regeneration of Cromer, to which all of us in north Norfolk are committed.
I am anxious, however, that the involvement of different parts of the health service—the Norfolk and Norwich health authority, the acute trust, the community health trust and the primary care group—does not lead to unnecessary, bureaucratic delay. When the plan has been put together, it needs one organisation to be in charge to drive it through. The Minister needs to address that issue urgently.
I remember well when, in the early 1980s, Sir Roy Griffiths produced a report on the national health service and said that if Florence Nightingale was walking through an NHS ward, she would ask who was in charge. The issue of who is in charge at the new Cromer hospital is a very important one for the Minister to grasp. As I said, it is essential that there is open, transparent and genuine consultation with local people.
Cromer hospital is very much north Norfolk's hospital. It belongs to the people of north Norfolk, not to Whitehall or even to Norwich. We want a world-class hospital in Cromer, but we also want it to retain the character that it has developed over the past 100 years. It needs to reflect the great voluntary tradition of all those who have supported it for so many generations.
I hope that when the plan to redevelop the hospital emerges at the end of March, as has been promised, the Minister will lend her support to it. I also hope that she will lend her weight and authority to ensuring that the lines of responsibility are clear and that action is taken.
We have a chance that comes once in a generation to create something really special in Cromer. Let us make sure that we do the right thing and let us get on with it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on securing this debate on the redevelopment of Cromer hospital. However, I commiserate with him about the late hour at which the debate has been called.
I am aware that there has been considerable local interest in the redevelopment of Cromer hospital and the proposals for it. It is clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the local support for Cromer hospital is something of which the local community can be proud.
The hospital's services provide a vital local resource which is clearly valued by local people and the town's many visitors alike. It currently provides a wide range of out-patient and day-case services, including neurology, orthopaedics and ophthalmology, as well as a minor injuries unit. The services provided by the hospital and


the dedication of its staff have rightly been given the recognition they deserve by the remarkable legacy of Mrs. Bernstein.
Cromer faces a number of challenges in terms of its health and its regeneration, particularly in relation to the decline of traditional industries such as fishing. There is widespread determination by the local NHS to ensure that all stakeholders, especially the public, will be involved in decisions on the future of the town and its services.
As the hon. Gentleman explained, there have been various and lengthy discussions about the future redevelopment of Cromer hospital to provide more efficiently organised, expanded and modern services. He is right to say that many challenges are faced by the hospital facilities. It is important that the discussions about the modernisation and development of Cromer hospital reach fruition and can make progress to benefit those living locally.
The hospital was built in 1932 and is run by the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS trust, which provides the majority of services currently on the site. I understand that in 1995, and again in 1998, discussions began with local commissioners about what services should be included in a redeveloped Cromer hospital site. However, on neither occasion was it possible for commissioners to determine the scope of services required. That was due partly to the anticipated intermediate services strategy which was being developed by the then East Norfolk health authority, but also to uncertainties about future commissioning arrangements. As a result, no business case was produced at that time, and there was no tangible progress for Cromer hospital and its patients. These previous efforts to determine how Cromer hospital should be redeveloped have clearly contributed to an understandable local feeling that more needs to be done to progress Cromer hospital and that the investment needs to be secured and made without further delay.
This is a matter for the local health authority, the trust, the community health council and local people to determine, through formal consultation, if required. If there is still local disagreement, the community health council can, of course, refer the matter to Ministers. However, this is first and foremost a local matter, and it should be resolved locally.
I understand that progress is being made on the redevelopment of Cromer hospital. The proposals being considered include diagnostic and treatment services, pathology and primary care, such as general practitioner services, as well as the future configuration of community care in Cromer. No decisions have been made to date, and it is anticipated that the proposals will be completed in the near future, when there will be an opportunity for the public to have their say. The proposals will then be developed into a strategic outline case by the local NHS, led by the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS trust. The strategic outline case will be submitted to the regional office later this year. The production of the proposals is, of course, not the end of the process, and it is important that this is understood by all; even after the proposals have been made public, discussions will need to continue on development, the cost of the proposed services and how they will be provided, and other details. I look forward to the conclusion of that work and the publication of the proposals as soon as possible.
One of the most fundamental issues that will have to be thought through as part of that process will be the running costs of the redeveloped Cromer hospital. That matter must be resolved before any work can begin on the ground. Agreement will need to be reached on the revenue implications of the developments. All local parties, including the public, must satisfy themselves that the benefits of the improvements to Cromer hospital and health services in Cromer are sustainable, adaptable and robust for the long-term future.
Public involvement and support will be key aspects of the proposals for Cromer hospital. There is a great deal of local interest in the future of the hospital, so it is crucial that patients and local people support the future developments.
The NHS plan demonstrates the Government's commitment to patient-focused services, and it is essential that services meet that aspiration; after all, that is what patients and the local community expect. Those proposals must have local support, so the involvement of the local community health council in the working group is also a key part of the process.
The working group that has been established to consider the redevelopment includes Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS trust, the North Norfolk primary care group, local GPs, the Norwich Community Health Partnership NHS trust, local authorities, including North Norfolk district council, and the local community health council.
It is extremely important that we take a partnership approach to the development of Cromer hospital. I take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the need for clarity in developing the proposals and his argument that a partnership approach should not entail too many discussions that do not lead to a conclusion. I do not think that is the consequence of a partnership approach; it is clear that Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS trust would take the lead in developing the strategic outline case. However, I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's points in mind as the plans progress. It is important that the partnership is conducted so as to deliver the results that local people expect.
Fresh impetus has been brought to discussion of the proposals by the substantial and completely unexpected bequest of Mrs. Bernstein in summer 2000. Mrs. Bernstein's regard for the excellent care and services provided to her sister by the staff of Cromer hospital led her to bequeath the remarkable sum of approximately £10 million to the hospital for the improvement of its general facilities. Understandably, that has invigorated discussions about the hospital's future.
Of course, the size of the bequest and its significant implications for the hospital mean that decisions about the future redevelopment have to be the right ones. An opportunity on that scale is unlikely to he repeated, so there is an obligation on the people drawing up the plans locally to ensure that the money is used to benefit local people for the long term. The public will have to be satisfied that the plans are right for the local area and will deliver the maximum possible benefits.
In response to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I can reassure him that no money from Mrs. Bernstein's legacy is being spent on any other project; it is not being used to support the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital or any other health project in the area. It will be used specifically for Cromer, as stipulated


in Mrs. Bernstein's will. It will make a significant contribution to the capital expenditure on the redevelopment of Cromer hospital. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be completely unacceptable if the area's fair share of NHS funding for a wide range of projects were affected by Mrs. Bernstein's bequest—it was clearly intended to improve facilities and to make a real difference for the people of Cromer.
The bequest represents a huge opportunity for those in Cromer, for the local community and for those in the NHS. It coincides with a big increase in funding to the NHS in Norfolk. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement the biggest ever increase in funding for the NHS in England. I am sure that he is also aware that, in his Budget speech on 7 March, the Chancellor announced extra resources for the NHS in England in each of the next three years, with an extra £300 million in 2001–02. That involves additional revenue and capital resources; provides a chance to improve NHS facilities across the board in Norfolk and the Norwich area; and comes at a useful time in the debate about Cromer hospital's future.
I am sure that all parties in the process are working towards a common aim—providing the best possible health services for the people of Cromer. I look forward to the speedy development of the proposals for the future of Cromer hospital and to those proposals being made public in the near future, as well as to partnership work involving not only all those in the NHS but local authorities, voluntary groups and the local community. Things are not standing still in Cromer while those discussions are taking place. Developments continue at the hospital—for example, improvements to the dermatology department are currently being implemented.
The redevelopment of Cromer hospital will be a very significant milestone for health services in Cromer, so all parties must ensure that the best possible solution is found. The health authority, the trust and those involved in the local discussions will take note of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in this debate. All local stakeholders owe it to the people of Cromer, the hospital's staff and Mrs. Bernstein, who had regard for them all, not to waste this opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Three o'clock.